Microsoft SQ1 vs A10-9600P

VS

Aggregate performance score

A10-9600P
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.47
Microsoft SQ1
2019
8 cores / 8 threads
3.73
+154%

Microsoft SQ1 outperforms A10-9600P by a whopping 154% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A10-9600P and Microsoft SQ1 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21721488
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeQualcomm Snapdragon
Power efficiency9.27no data
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Cortex-A76 / A55 (Kryo 495) (2019)
Release date1 June 2016 (8 years ago)2 October 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A10-9600P and Microsoft SQ1 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)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads48
Base clock speed2.4 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz3 GHz
L2 cache2048 KBno data
L3 cacheno data2 MB
Chip lithography28 nm7 nm
Die size250 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistors3100 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A10-9600P and Microsoft SQ1 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.

SocketFP4no data
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-9600P and Microsoft SQ1. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
DualGraphics+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-9600P and Microsoft SQ1 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-9600P and Microsoft SQ1. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4no data
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 GraphicsQualcomm Adreno 685
iGPU core count6no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A10-9600P and Microsoft SQ1 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A10-9600P and Microsoft SQ1 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-9600P and Microsoft SQ1.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes8no 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.

A10-9600P 1.47
Microsoft SQ1 3.73
+154%

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.

A10-9600P 2335
Microsoft SQ1 5918
+153%

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.

A10-9600P 2447
+356%
Microsoft SQ1 537

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.

A10-9600P 6508
+52.2%
Microsoft SQ1 4276

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.

A10-9600P 15.3
Microsoft SQ1 14.2
+7.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.47 3.73
Recency 1 June 2016 2 October 2019
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 4 8
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm

Microsoft SQ1 has a 153.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Microsoft SQ1 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-9600P in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A10-9600P and Microsoft SQ1, 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 A10-9600P
A10-9600P
Microsoft SQ1
SQ1

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.


3.1 327 votes

Rate A10-9600P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 58 votes

Rate Microsoft SQ1 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A10-9600P or Microsoft SQ1, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.