A9-9425 vs Apple M2
Aggregate performance score
Apple M2 outperforms A9-9425 by a whopping 366% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Apple M2 and A9-9425 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 861 | 1930 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Apple Apple M-Series | AMD Bristol Ridge |
| Architecture codename | no data | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 10 June 2022 (2 years ago) | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Current price | no data | $561 |
Detailed specifications
Apple M2 and A9-9425 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.424 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.48 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 2 MB | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 20 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | no data | 124.5 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 20000 Million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M2 and A9-9425 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FT4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Apple M2 and A9-9425. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | DDR4-2133 RAM (1 channel), PCIe 3, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Apple M2 and A9-9425 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Apple M2 and A9-9425. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M2 10-Core GPU ( - 1398 MHz) | AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) |
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.
Apple M2 outperforms A9-9425 by 366% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Apple M2 outperforms A9-9425 by 888% in Passmark.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Apple M2 outperforms A9-9425 by 872% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Apple M2 outperforms A9-9425 by 193% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.24 | 1.77 |
| Recency | 10 June 2022 | 31 May 2016 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 15 Watt |
The Apple M2 is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9425 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M2 and A9-9425, 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.
