A6-9500 vs Athlon II X4 640
Aggregated performance score
Athlon II X4 640 outperforms A6-9500 by a significant 20% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 640 and A6-9500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2077 | 2222 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.92 | 2.62 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Propus (2009−2011) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 11 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 27 July 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | $64 |
| Current price | $49 (0.6x MSRP) | $56 (0.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon II X4 640 has 11% better value for money than A6-9500.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 640 and A6-9500 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1024 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 300 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 640 and A6-9500 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 |
| Socket | AM3 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A6-9500. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| FRTC | no data | 1 |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| PowerTune | no data | + |
| TrueAudio | no data | + |
| PowerNow | no data | + |
| PowerGating | no data | + |
| VirusProtect | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A6-9500 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A6-9500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2400 |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics |
| iGPU core count | no data | 6 |
| Enduro | no data | + |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon II X4 640 and A6-9500 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A6-9500 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 640 and A6-9500.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
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.
Athlon II X4 640 outperforms A6-9500 by 20% based on our aggregated 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%
Athlon II X4 640 outperforms A6-9500 by 19% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
A6-9500 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by 112% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
A6-9500 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by 3% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.45 | 1.21 |
| Recency | 11 May 2010 | 27 July 2017 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Cost | $80 | $64 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Athlon II X4 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-9500 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 640 and A6-9500, 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.
