A9-9410 vs FX-6200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-6200
2012
6 cores / 6 threads, 125 Watt
2.33
+165%

FX-6200 outperforms A9-9410 by a whopping 165% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking20002784
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency0.792.49
DesignerAMDAMD
Manufacturerno dataGlobalFoundries
Architecture codenameZambezi (2011−2012)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date27 February 2012 (13 years ago)31 May 2016 (9 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-6200 and A9-9410 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads62
Base clock speed3.8 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz3.5 GHz
L1 cache288 KBno data
L2 cache6144 KB2048 KB
L3 cache8192 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2125 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.3 V - Max: 1.4125 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-6200 and A9-9410 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
SocketAM3+FP4
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6200 and A9-9410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataVirtualization,
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6200 and A9-9410 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6200 and A9-9410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2133
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R5 Graphics
iGPU core countno data3
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-6200 and A9-9410 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-6200 and A9-9410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6200 and A9-9410.

PCIe versionn/a3.0
PCI Express lanesno data8

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.

FX-6200 2.33
+165%
A9-9410 0.88

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.

FX-6200 4112
+166%
Samples: 557
A9-9410 1548
Samples: 321

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.33 0.88
Recency 27 February 2012 31 May 2016
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 6 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 15 Watt

FX-6200 has a 164.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

A9-9410, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 733.3% lower power consumption.

The AMD FX-6200 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A9-9410 in performance tests.

Note that FX-6200 is a desktop processor while A9-9410 is a notebook one.

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 FX-6200
FX-6200
AMD A9-9410
A9-9410

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.


4.1 160 votes

Rate FX-6200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 135 votes

Rate A9-9410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors FX-6200 and A9-9410, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.