Celeron G1620 vs A9-9425

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
+76.5%
Celeron G1620
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 55 Watt
0.98

A9-9425 outperforms Celeron G1620 by an impressive 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and Celeron G1620 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20292468
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.03
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Bristol Ridgeno data
Power efficiency10.911.69
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)3 December 2012 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$208

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and Celeron G1620 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed3.1 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz2.7 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cache128K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die size124.5 mm294 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °C65 °C
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and Celeron G1620 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
SocketFT4FCLGA1155
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt55 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Celeron G1620. 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-+

Security technologies

A9-9425 and Celeron G1620 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and Celeron G1620 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Celeron G1620. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1.05 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9425 and Celeron G1620 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9425 and Celeron G1620.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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
+76.5%
Celeron G1620 0.98

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 1512
Celeron G1620 1560
+3.2%

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.

A9-9425 320
Celeron G1620 419
+30.9%

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.

A9-9425 482
Celeron G1620 732
+51.9%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.73 0.98
Recency 31 May 2016 3 December 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 55 Watt

A9-9425 has a 76.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

Celeron G1620, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1620 in performance tests.

Be aware that A9-9425 is a notebook processor while Celeron G1620 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Celeron G1620, 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 G1620
Celeron G1620

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 1534 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 84 votes

Rate Celeron G1620 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 G1620, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.