Core 2 Extreme X7900 vs A9-9425

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.56
+148%
Core 2 Extreme X7900
2007
2 cores / 2 threads, 44 Watt
0.63

A9-9425 outperforms Core 2 Extreme X7900 by a whopping 148% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22682962
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Core 2 Extreme
Power efficiency4.400.61
DesignerAMDIntel
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date31 May 2016 (9 years ago)1 September 2007 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$851

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and Core 2 Extreme X7900 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 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz2.8 GHz
Bus rateno data800 MHz
L1 cache128K (per core)128 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)4 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm65 nm
Die size124.5 mm2143 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data1.1V-1.375V

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and Core 2 Extreme X7900 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
SocketFT4PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt44 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Core 2 Extreme X7900. 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-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
AMTno data+
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

A9-9425 and Core 2 Extreme X7900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and Core 2 Extreme X7900 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Core 2 Extreme X7900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 900 MHz)no data

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

A9-9425 1.56
+148%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 0.63

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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.

A9-9425 1513
+37%
Samples: 502
Core 2 Extreme X7900 1104
Samples: 42

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 571
+47.5%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 387

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 757
+21.1%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 625

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
Core 2 Extreme X7900 3022
+12.5%

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
Core 2 Extreme X7900 5764
+32.9%

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

A9-9425 2314
Core 2 Extreme X7900 2449
+5.8%

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
+20.2%
Core 2 Extreme X7900 31.05

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.56 0.63
Recency 31 May 2016 1 September 2007
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 44 Watt

A9-9425 has a 147.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 193.3% lower power consumption.

The AMD A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core 2 Extreme X7900 in performance tests.

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 Core 2 Extreme X7900
Core 2 Extreme X7900

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 1578 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 6 votes

Rate Core 2 Extreme X7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors A9-9425 and Core 2 Extreme X7900, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.