Celeron J4025 vs A6-9500
Aggregate performance score
A6-9500 outperforms Celeron J4025 by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A6-9500 and Celeron J4025 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2368 | 2526 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.62 | 2.67 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.72 | 8.80 |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (7 years ago) | 4 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $64 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Celeron J4025 has 2% better value for money than A6-9500.
Detailed specifications
A6-9500 and Celeron J4025 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 56 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1024 KB | 4 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 93 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on A6-9500 and Celeron J4025 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | Intel BGA 1090 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-9500 and Celeron J4025. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-9500 and Celeron J4025 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-9500 and Celeron J4025. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR4 |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 600 (250 - 700 MHz) |
| iGPU core count | 6 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A6-9500 and Celeron J4025 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A6-9500 and Celeron J4025 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-9500 and Celeron J4025.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | 6 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.18 | 0.93 |
| Recency | 27 July 2017 | 4 November 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 10 Watt |
A6-9500 has a 26.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron J4025, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 550% lower power consumption.
The A6-9500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J4025 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A6-9500 and Celeron J4025, 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.
