Celeron N3060 vs A9-9425

VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
+312%
Celeron N3060
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
0.42

A9-9425 outperforms Celeron N3060 by a whopping 312% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and Celeron N3060 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20432987
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency10.926.63
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Braswell (2015−2016)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)15 January 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and Celeron N3060 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 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz2.48 GHz
Bus typeno dataIDI
L1 cache128K (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm14 nm
Die size124.5 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and Celeron N3060 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)
SocketFT4FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Celeron N3060. 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+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

A9-9425 and Celeron N3060 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection-+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and Celeron N3060 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Celeron N3060. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 900 MHz)Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) (320 - 700 MHz)
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data600 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9425 and Celeron N3060 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9425 and Celeron N3060 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9425 and Celeron N3060.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data4
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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
+312%
Celeron N3060 0.42

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
+128%
Celeron N3060 665

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

A9-9425 2686
+112%
Celeron N3060 1267

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

A9-9425 4338
+81%
Celeron N3060 2397

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

A9-9425 25.83
+67%
Celeron N3060 43.13

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

A9-9425 2
+80.7%
Celeron N3060 1

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
+72.4%
Celeron N3060 73

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
+100%
Celeron N3060 38

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark 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 loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

A9-9425 0.9
+105%
Celeron N3060 0.44

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

A9-9425 1
+111%
Celeron N3060 0.5

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

A9-9425 10
+78%
Celeron N3060 5

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

A9-9425 51
+77.8%
Celeron N3060 28

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

A9-9425 3323
+94.6%
Celeron N3060 1708

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

A9-9425 2039
+123%
Celeron N3060 913

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.73 0.42
Integrated graphics card 1.48 0.45
Recency 31 May 2016 15 January 2016
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 6 Watt

A9-9425 has a 311.9% higher aggregate performance score, 228.9% faster integrated GPU, and an age advantage of 4 months.

Celeron N3060, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N3060 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Celeron N3060, 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 N3060
Celeron N3060

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
2.4 798 votes

Rate Celeron N3060 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 N3060, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.