Celeron N4000 vs A9-9410

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads
0.99
+4.2%
Celeron N4000
2017
2 cores / 2 threads
0.95

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N4000 by 4% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

Comparing A9-9410 and Celeron N4000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking23392366
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Gemini Lake (2019)
Release date31 May 2016 (7 years ago)11 December 2017 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107
Current price$722 $305 (2.9x MSRP)

Technical specs

A9-9410 and Celeron N4000 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.9 GHz1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz2.6 GHz
L1 cacheno data112 KB
L2 cache2048 KB4 MB
L3 cacheno data4 MB
Chip lithography28 nm14 nm
Die size124.5 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C105 deg C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on A9-9410 and Celeron N4000 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFP4FCBGA1090
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N4000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSingle-Channel DDR4-2133, Virtualization,Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI++
FMA+no data
AVX+no data
FRTC1no data
FreeSync1no data
PowerTune-no data
TrueAudio-no data
PowerNow-no data
PowerGating-no data
Out-of-band client management-no data
VirusProtect-no data
RAID-no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoringno data+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Statusno dataDiscontinued

Security technologies

A9-9410 and Celeron N4000 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
MPXno data+
Identity Protectionno data+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N4000 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+
IOMMU 2.0-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N4000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2133DDR4, DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channels12
Maximum memory bandwidthno data38.397 GB/s
ECC memory supportno data-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 GraphicsIntel UHD Graphics 600
iGPU core count3no data
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Videono data+
Enduro+no data
Switchable graphics1no data
UVD+no data
VCE+no data
Graphics max frequencyno data650 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and Celeron N4000 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N4000 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution supportno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N4000 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 1212
OpenGLno data4.4
Vulkan1no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N4000.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes86
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data8
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno data+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A9-9410 0.99
+4.2%
Celeron N4000 0.95

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N4000 by 4% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

A9-9410 1528
+3.8%
Celeron N4000 1472

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N4000 by 4% in Passmark.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

A9-9410 2694
+25.2%
Celeron N4000 2152

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N4000 by 25% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A9-9410 4619
+14.6%
Celeron N4000 4030

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N4000 by 15% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A9-9410 2455
+8.7%
Celeron N4000 2259

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N4000 by 9% in 3DMark06 CPU.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

A9-9410 23.95
+33.4%
Celeron N4000 31.94

Celeron N4000 outperforms A9-9410 by 33% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

A9-9410 2
Celeron N4000 2
+3.8%

Celeron N4000 outperforms A9-9410 by 4% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A9-9410 130
Celeron N4000 138
+6.2%

Celeron N4000 outperforms A9-9410 by 6% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A9-9410 63
Celeron N4000 71
+12.5%

Celeron N4000 outperforms A9-9410 by 13% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

A9-9410 0.82
Celeron N4000 0.89
+8.5%

Celeron N4000 outperforms A9-9410 by 9% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A9-9410 1
+9.9%
Celeron N4000 0.9

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N4000 by 10% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A9-9410 879
+15.7%
Celeron N4000 760

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N4000 by 16% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A9-9410 54
+13.1%
Celeron N4000 47

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N4000 by 13% in x264 encoding pass 1.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A9-9410 10
+6.7%
Celeron N4000 9

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N4000 by 7% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 0.99 0.95
Integrated graphics card 0.86
Recency 31 May 2016 11 December 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 6 Watt

We couldn't decide between A9-9410 and Celeron N4000. The differences in performance seem too small.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and Celeron N4000, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A9-9410
A9-9410
Intel Celeron N4000
Celeron N4000

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

User Ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 107 votes

Rate A9-9410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 785 votes

Rate Celeron N4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9410 or Celeron N4000, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.