A9-9425 vs Celeron N6211

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N6211
2022
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.41
A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
+22.7%

A9-9425 outperforms Celeron N6211 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N6211 and A9-9425 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21972029
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.33no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesElkhart LakeAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency20.5310.91
Architecture codenameElkhart Lake (2022)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date17 July 2022 (2 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$54no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N6211 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.2 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cacheno data128K (per core)
L2 cache1.5 MB1 MB (per core)
Chip lithography10 nm28 nm
Die sizeno data124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature70 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistorsno data1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N6211 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 configurationno data1
SocketBGA1493FT4
Power consumption (TDP)6.5 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N6211 and A9-9425. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N6211 and A9-9425 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N6211 and A9-9425. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)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.

Celeron N6211 1.41
A9-9425 1.73
+22.7%

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.

Celeron N6211 2245
+48.5%
A9-9425 1512

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.

Celeron N6211 2696
+0.4%
A9-9425 2686

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.

Celeron N6211 4693
+8.2%
A9-9425 4338

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.

Celeron N6211 49.66
A9-9425 25.83
+92.3%

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.

Celeron N6211 2
+10%
A9-9425 2

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Celeron N6211 128
+2.4%
A9-9425 125

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.

Celeron N6211 76
A9-9425 76

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.

Celeron N6211 0.97
+7.8%
A9-9425 0.9

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.

Celeron N6211 1
+3.2%
A9-9425 1

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.  

Celeron N6211 10
+3.1%
A9-9425 10

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.  

Celeron N6211 45
A9-9425 51
+11.6%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron N6211 731
A9-9425 891
+21.9%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.41 1.73
Integrated graphics card 1.39 1.48
Recency 17 July 2022 31 May 2016
Chip lithography 10 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 6 Watt 15 Watt

Celeron N6211 has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

A9-9425, on the other hand, has a 22.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 6.5% faster integrated GPU.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N6211 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron N6211 is a desktop processor while A9-9425 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N6211 and A9-9425, 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.


Intel Celeron N6211
Celeron N6211
AMD A9-9425
A9-9425

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.


2.3 4 votes

Rate Celeron N6211 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1534 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N6211 or A9-9425, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.