FX-6120 vs A9-9410

VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.96
FX-6120
2012
6 cores / 6 threads, 95 Watt
2.45
+155%

FX-6120 outperforms A9-9410 by a whopping 155% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9410 and FX-6120 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24931753
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Bristol Ridgeno data
Power efficiency6.062.44
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Zambezi (2011−2012)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A9-9410 and FX-6120 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)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads26
Base clock speed2.9 GHz3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz4.2 GHz
L1 cacheno data288 KB
L2 cache2048 KB6 MB
L3 cacheno data8 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size125 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on A9-9410 and FX-6120 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
SocketFP4AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and FX-6120. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,no data
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and FX-6120 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and FX-6120. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2133DDR3
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 Graphicsno data
iGPU core count3no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and FX-6120 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9410 and FX-6120 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and FX-6120.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes8no 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.

A9-9410 0.96
FX-6120 2.45
+155%

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 1522
FX-6120 3899
+156%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.96 2.45
Recency 31 May 2016 23 October 2012
Physical cores 2 6
Threads 2 6
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 95 Watt

A9-9410 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.

FX-6120, on the other hand, has a 155.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

The FX-6120 is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9410 in performance tests.

Be aware that A9-9410 is a notebook processor while FX-6120 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and FX-6120, 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
AMD FX-6120
FX-6120

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.


2.8 113 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 35 votes

Rate FX-6120 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9410 or FX-6120, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.