Microsoft SQ1 vs A6-9225
Aggregate performance score
Microsoft SQ1 outperforms A6-9225 by a whopping 337% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A6-9225 and Microsoft SQ1 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2570 | 1487 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | Qualcomm Snapdragon |
| Power efficiency | 5.30 | 0.12 |
| Architecture codename | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) | Cortex-A76 / A55 (Kryo 495) (2019) |
| Release date | 1 June 2018 (6 years ago) | 2 October 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A6-9225 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 160 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | 124.5 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1200 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A6-9225 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.
| Socket | BGA | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 3000 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-9225 and Microsoft SQ1. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-9225 and Microsoft SQ1. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 686 MHz) | Qualcomm Adreno 685 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.84 | 3.67 |
| Recency | 1 June 2018 | 2 October 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 3000 Watt |
A6-9225 has 19900% lower power consumption.
Microsoft SQ1, on the other hand, has a 336.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Microsoft SQ1 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-9225 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A6-9225 and Microsoft SQ1, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
