Celeron B820 vs A9-9425
Aggregate performance score
A9-9425 outperforms Celeron B820 by a whopping 246% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A9-9425 and Celeron B820 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2043 | 2889 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 10.92 | 1.35 |
| Architecture codename | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 1 July 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $86 |
Detailed specifications
A9-9425 and Celeron B820 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 17 |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 124.5 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A9-9425 and Celeron B820 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 configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FT4 | FCPGA988,PGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Celeron B820. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
A9-9425 and Celeron B820 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and Celeron B820 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Celeron B820. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.335 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 900 MHz) | Intel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processors |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A9-9425 and Celeron B820 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| SDVO | no data | + |
| CRT | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9425 and Celeron B820.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.73 | 0.50 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.48 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 31 May 2016 | 1 July 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
A9-9425 has a 246% higher aggregate performance score, 92.2% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 3 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B820 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Celeron B820, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
