Ryzen 7 2700 vs A9-9410

VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.96
Ryzen 7 2700
2018
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
9.88
+929%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms A9-9410 by a whopping 929% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9410 and Ryzen 7 2700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2506784
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data8.68
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeAMD Ryzen 7
Power efficiency6.0614.38
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Zen+ (2018−2019)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)19 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A9-9410 and Ryzen 7 2700 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)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads216
Base clock speed2.9 GHz3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz4.1 GHz
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data32
L1 cacheno data96K (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm12 nm
Die size125 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on A9-9410 and Ryzen 7 2700 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFP4AM4
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and Ryzen 7 2700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and Ryzen 7 2700 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and Ryzen 7 2700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2133DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channels12
Maximum memory bandwidthno data46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 Graphics-
iGPU core count3-
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and Ryzen 7 2700 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9410 and Ryzen 7 2700 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12-
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and Ryzen 7 2700.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes820

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 0.96
Ryzen 7 2700 9.88
+929%

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.

A9-9410 1528
Ryzen 7 2700 15694
+927%

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.

A9-9410 2694
Ryzen 7 2700 4505
+67.2%

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.

A9-9410 4619
Ryzen 7 2700 31385
+579%

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.

A9-9410 2455
Ryzen 7 2700 9475
+286%

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.

A9-9410 23.95
Ryzen 7 2700 5.14
+366%

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.

A9-9410 2
Ryzen 7 2700 17
+951%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

A9-9410 130
Ryzen 7 2700 1551
+1093%

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.

A9-9410 63
Ryzen 7 2700 161
+156%

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.

A9-9410 0.82
Ryzen 7 2700 1.78
+117%

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.

A9-9410 1
Ryzen 7 2700 9
+800%

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.

A9-9410 879
Ryzen 7 2700 4440
+405%

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.  

A9-9410 10
Ryzen 7 2700 90
+785%

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.  

A9-9410 54
Ryzen 7 2700 196
+266%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.96 9.88
Recency 31 May 2016 19 April 2018
Physical cores 2 8
Threads 2 16
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 65 Watt

A9-9410 has 333.3% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 7 2700, on the other hand, has a 929.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 7 2700 is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9410 in performance tests.

Be aware that A9-9410 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 7 2700 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and Ryzen 7 2700, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

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
AMD Ryzen 7 2700
Ryzen 7 2700

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.

Community ratings

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


2.8 115 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 3154 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 2700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9410 or Ryzen 7 2700, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.