Celeron 1020E vs A9-9410
Aggregate performance score
A9-9410 outperforms Celeron 1020E by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2503 | 2558 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 6.06 | 2.41 |
| Architecture codename | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E 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 | 2.9 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 125 mm2 | 118 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E 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 | G2 (988B) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Virtualization, | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2133 | DDR3 |
| Max memory channels | 1 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (650 - 1000 MHz) |
| iGPU core count | 3 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| 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 | 0.89 |
| Recency | 31 May 2016 | 20 January 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
A9-9410 has a 7.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
Celeron 1020E, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E.
Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and Celeron 1020E, 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.
