Apple M2 Max vs A9-9425

VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
Apple M2 Max
2023
12 cores / 12 threads, 79 Watt
16.81
+872%

Apple M2 Max outperforms A9-9425 by a whopping 872% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and M2 Max processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2043394
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeApple M-Series
Power efficiency10.9120.12
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)no data
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)17 January 2023 (1 year ago)

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and M2 Max 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)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads212
Base clock speed3.1 GHz2.424 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache128K (per core)3.3 MB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)36 MB
L3 cache0 KB48 MB
Chip lithography28 nm5 nm
Die size124.5 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million67000 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and M2 Max 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 configuration1no data
SocketFT4no data
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt79 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and M2 Max. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRANDno data
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and M2 Max are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and M2 Max. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 900 MHz)Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU

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.

A9-9425 1.73
Apple M2 Max 16.81
+872%

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.

A9-9425 1513
Apple M2 Max 26697
+1665%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

A9-9425 125
Apple M2 Max 2084
+1567%

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.

A9-9425 76
Apple M2 Max 236
+211%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.73 16.81
Recency 31 May 2016 17 January 2023
Physical cores 2 12
Threads 2 12
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 79 Watt

A9-9425 has 426.7% lower power consumption.

Apple M2 Max, on the other hand, has a 871.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 500% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The M2 Max is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9425 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Apple M2 Max, 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 A9-9425
A9-9425
Apple M2 Max
M2 Max

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.


3.5 1537 votes

Rate A9-9425 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 236 votes

Rate M2 Max on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9425 or M2 Max, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.