Athlon XP 1600+ vs A9-9425

VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
+1473%
Athlon XP 1600+
2001
1 core / 1 thread, 63 Watt
0.11

A9-9425 outperforms Athlon XP 1600+ by a whopping 1473% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and Athlon XP 1600+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20433374
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Bristol Ridgeno data
Power efficiency10.910.17
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Thoroughbred (2001−2002)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)January 2001 (23 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and Athlon XP 1600+ 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speed3.1 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz1.4 GHz
L1 cache128K (per core)128 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)256 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm180 nm
Die size124.5 mm2150 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million37 million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and Athlon XP 1600+ 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
SocketFT4A
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt63 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Athlon XP 1600+. 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 Athlon XP 1600+ are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Athlon XP 1600+. 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 cardAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 900 MHz)no 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.

A9-9425 1.73
+1473%
Athlon XP 1600+ 0.11

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
+770%
Athlon XP 1600+ 174

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.73 0.11
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 28 nm 180 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 63 Watt

A9-9425 has a 1472.7% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 320% lower power consumption.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon XP 1600+ in performance tests.

Be aware that A9-9425 is a notebook processor while Athlon XP 1600+ is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Athlon XP 1600+, 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
AMD Athlon XP 1600+
Athlon XP 1600+

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
3.7 16 votes

Rate Athlon XP 1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9425 or Athlon XP 1600+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.