Celeron 2970M vs A9-9410

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.96
+2.1%
Celeron 2970M
2014
2 cores / 2 threads, 37 Watt
0.94

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron 2970M by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25032521
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency6.052.40
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Haswell (2013−2015)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)14 April 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$75

Detailed specifications

A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.9 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz2.2 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache2048 KB512 KB
L3 cache0 KB2 MB
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die size125 mm2130 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million960 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M 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 configuration11
SocketFP4FCPGA946
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt37 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2133DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channels12
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 GraphicsIntel HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel Processors
iGPU core count3no data
Quick Sync Video-+
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data1.1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
VGAno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes816

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.

A9-9410 0.96
+2.1%
Celeron 2970M 0.94

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.

A9-9410 1528
+1.8%
Celeron 2970M 1501

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.

A9-9410 2694
Celeron 2970M 3222
+19.6%

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.

A9-9410 4619
Celeron 2970M 6248
+35.3%

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.

A9-9410 2455
Celeron 2970M 2489
+1.4%

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.

A9-9410 23.95
+39.9%
Celeron 2970M 33.5

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.

A9-9410 2
Celeron 2970M 2
+18.2%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

A9-9410 130
Celeron 2970M 164
+26.2%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made 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 (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

A9-9410 63
Celeron 2970M 85
+34.9%

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.

A9-9410 0.82
Celeron 2970M 0.96
+17.1%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

A9-9410 1
+400%
Celeron 2970M 0.2

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

A9-9410 879
Celeron 2970M 1410
+60.4%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

A9-9410 10
Celeron 2970M 12
+15.5%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

A9-9410 54
Celeron 2970M 63
+16.8%

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

A9-9410 3182
Celeron 2970M 3909
+22.8%

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

A9-9410 2133
Celeron 2970M 2343
+9.8%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.96 0.94
Recency 31 May 2016 14 April 2014
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 37 Watt

A9-9410 has a 2.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 146.7% lower power consumption.

Celeron 2970M, 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 2970M.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and Celeron 2970M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A9-9410
A9-9410
Intel Celeron 2970M
Celeron 2970M

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 115 votes

Rate A9-9410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Celeron 2970M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9410 or Celeron 2970M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.