A9-9410 vs A10-9620P

VS

Aggregate performance score

A10-9620P
2017
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.60
+66.7%
A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.96

A10-9620P outperforms A9-9410 by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A10-9620P and A9-9410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21062503
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesBristol RidgeAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency10.096.05
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date1 January 2017 (7 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A10-9620P 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 speed3.4 GHz3.5 GHz
L2 cache2 MB2048 KB
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm28 nm
Die size250 mm2125 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors3100 Million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A10-9620P 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 configurationno data1
SocketFP4FP4
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-9620P 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 A10-9620P and A9-9410 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-9620P and A9-9410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR4-2133
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 758 MHz)AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
iGPU core countno data3
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A10-9620P and A9-9410 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A10-9620P and A9-9410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-9620P 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.

A10-9620P 1.60
+66.7%
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.

A10-9620P 2538
+66.1%
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.

A10-9620P 2277
A9-9410 2694
+18.3%

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.

A10-9620P 7420
+60.6%
A9-9410 4619

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.

A10-9620P 14.41
+66.2%
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.

A10-9620P 3
+67.3%
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.

A10-9620P 230
+76.9%
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.

A10-9620P 72
+14.3%
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.

A10-9620P 0.81
A9-9410 0.82
+1.2%

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.

A10-9620P 1329
+51.2%
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.  

A10-9620P 16
+60.9%
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.  

A10-9620P 77
+43.2%
A9-9410 54

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.60 0.96
Recency 1 January 2017 31 May 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2

A10-9620P has a 66.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The A10-9620P is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9410 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A10-9620P 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 A10-9620P
A10-9620P
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.


3.3 313 votes

Rate A10-9620P 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 A10-9620P or A9-9410, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.