A10-6700 vs A9-9410
Aggregate performance score
A10-6700 outperforms A9-9410 by a whopping 103% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A9-9410 and A10-6700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2493 | 1939 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.06 | 2.84 |
| Architecture codename | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) | Richland (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A9-9410 and A10-6700 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 4096 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 125 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 71 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A9-9410 and A10-6700 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 | FP4 | FM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and A10-6700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Virtualization, | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | FMA4 |
| AVX | + | AVX |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| PowerGating | - | + |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and A10-6700 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and A10-6700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2133 | DDR3-1866 |
| Max memory channels | 1 | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics | AMD Radeon HD 8670D |
| iGPU core count | 3 | no data |
| Number of pipelines | no data | 384 |
| Enduro | + | + |
| Switchable graphics | + | + |
| UVD | + | + |
| VCE | + | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and A10-6700 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A9-9410 and A10-6700 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | DirectX® 11 |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and A10-6700.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | no 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.96 | 1.95 |
| Recency | 31 May 2016 | 1 June 2013 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
A9-9410 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.
A10-6700, on the other hand, has a 103.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
The A10-6700 is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9410 in performance tests.
Be aware that A9-9410 is a notebook processor while A10-6700 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and A10-6700, 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.
