A9-9410 vs A10-5750M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A10-5750M
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.37
+42.7%
A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.96

A10-5750M outperforms A9-9410 by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A10-5750M and A9-9410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22432505
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency3.706.06
Architecture codenameRichland (2013−2014)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date1 June 2013 (11 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A10-5750M 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.5 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz3.5 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)2048 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size246 mm2125 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °C74 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A10-5750M 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
SocketFS1r2FP4
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-5750M and A9-9410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMAVirtualization,
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-5750M and A9-9410 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-5750M 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 card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 8650G (533 - 720 MHz)AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
iGPU core countno data3
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A10-5750M and A9-9410 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A10-5750M and A9-9410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-5750M and A9-9410.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data8

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.

A10-5750M 1.37
+42.7%
A9-9410 0.96

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.

A10-5750M 2174
+42.3%
A9-9410 1528

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.

A10-5750M 2579
A9-9410 2694
+4.5%

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.

A10-5750M 6451
+39.7%
A9-9410 4619

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

A10-5750M 3238
+31.9%
A9-9410 2455

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.

A10-5750M 22.5
+6.4%
A9-9410 23.95

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.

A10-5750M 2
+45.3%
A9-9410 2

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

A10-5750M 209
+60.8%
A9-9410 130

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.

A10-5750M 76
+20.6%
A9-9410 63

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.

A10-5750M 0.85
+3.7%
A9-9410 0.82

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.

A10-5750M 1.5
+50%
A9-9410 1

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.

A10-5750M 2035
+132%
A9-9410 879

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.  

A10-5750M 15
+48.1%
A9-9410 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.  

A10-5750M 76
+42.1%
A9-9410 54

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

A10-5750M 4787
+45.1%
A9-9410 3299

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

A10-5750M 1816
A9-9410 2134
+17.5%

Geekbench 2

A10-5750M 4742
+11.3%
A9-9410 4260

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

A10-5750M 4963
+56%
A9-9410 3182

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

A10-5750M 2175
+2%
A9-9410 2133

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.37 0.96
Recency 1 June 2013 31 May 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

A10-5750M has a 42.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

A9-9410, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The A10-5750M is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9410 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A10-5750M and A9-9410, 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.


AMD A10-5750M
A10-5750M
AMD A9-9410
A9-9410

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.


3.8 252 votes

Rate A10-5750M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 115 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A10-5750M or A9-9410, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.