A9-9420e vs i5-540M

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-540M
2010
2 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.14
+62.9%
A9-9420e
2018
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.70

Core i5-540M outperforms A9-9420e by an impressive 63% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-540M and A9-9420e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23772705
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core i5AMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency3.084.42
Architecture codenameArrandale (2010−2011)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)1 June 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$257no data

Detailed specifications

Core i5-540M and A9-9420e 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)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.53 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.07 GHzno data
Bus typeDMI 1.0no data
Bus rate1 × 2.5 GT/sno data
Multiplier19no data
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache3 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size81+114 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C90 °C
Number of transistors382+177 Million1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-540M and A9-9420e 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketBGA1288,PGA988BGA
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-540M and A9-9420e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2Virtualization,
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology+no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Core i5-540M and A9-9420e technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-540M and A9-9420e are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-540M and A9-9420e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth17.051 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel ProcessorsAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)
Clear Video+no data
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency766 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-540M and A9-9420e integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-540M and A9-9420e.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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.

i5-540M 1.14
+62.9%
A9-9420e 0.70

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.

i5-540M 1808
+63.3%
A9-9420e 1107

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.14 0.70
Integrated graphics card 0.77 1.48
Recency 7 January 2010 1 June 2018
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

i5-540M has a 62.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more threads.

A9-9420e, on the other hand, has 92.2% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 8 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Core i5-540M is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9420e in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-540M and A9-9420e, 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 Core i5-540M
Core i5-540M
AMD A9-9420e
A9-9420e

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.


3.7 163 votes

Rate Core i5-540M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 149 votes

Rate A9-9420e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-540M or A9-9420e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.