Celeron 807 vs A9-9425

VS

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and Celeron 807 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2027not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency10.88no data
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)1 July 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$70

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and Celeron 807 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)
Threads22
Base clock speed3.1 GHz1.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz1.5 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data15
L1 cache128K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cacheno data1.5 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size124.5 mm2131 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and Celeron 807 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)
SocketFT4FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Celeron 807. 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, RDRANDIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
FMA++
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

A9-9425 and Celeron 807 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and Celeron 807 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Celeron 807. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)Intel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data950 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9425 and Celeron 807 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9425 and Celeron 807.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

Synthetic benchmark performance

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



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
+286%
Celeron 807 392

Pros & cons summary


Recency 31 May 2016 1 July 2012
Physical cores 2 1
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 17 Watt

A9-9425 has an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 13.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between A9-9425 and Celeron 807. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Celeron 807, 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
Intel Celeron 807
Celeron 807

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 1533 votes

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

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

Rate Celeron 807 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9425 or Celeron 807, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.