A9-9410 vs A8-3520M
Aggregate performance score
A9-9410 outperforms A8-3520M by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-3520M and A9-9410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2520 | 2488 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A-Series | AMD Bristol Ridge |
| Power efficiency | 2.48 | 6.02 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 20 December 2011 (12 years ago) | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A8-3520M 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2048 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 125 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A8-3520M 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FS1 | FP4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3520M and A9-9410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G | Virtualization, |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| FRTC | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3520M and A9-9410 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3520M and A9-9410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2133 |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 6620G | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics |
| iGPU core count | no data | 3 |
| Enduro | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A8-3520M and A9-9410 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A8-3520M and A9-9410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-3520M and A9-9410.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Geekbench 2
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.95 | 0.99 |
| Recency | 20 December 2011 | 31 May 2016 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
A8-3520M has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
A9-9410, on the other hand, has a 4.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A8-3520M and A9-9410.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3520M and A9-9410, 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.
