GX-210JA vs A9-9410

VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.96
+500%
GX-210JA
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
0.16

A9-9410 outperforms GX-210JA by a whopping 500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9410 and GX-210JA processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25053306
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeAMD
Power efficiency6.062.52
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Temash (2013)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)23 May 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A9-9410 and GX-210JA 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 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz1 GHz
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography28 nm28 nm
Die size125 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9410 and GX-210JA 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 configuration1no data
SocketFP4FT3 BGA
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and GX-210JA. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and GX-210JA are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and GX-210JA. 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 GX-210JA integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9410 and GX-210JA integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and GX-210JA.

PCIe version3.0no data
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
+500%
GX-210JA 0.16

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
+516%
GX-210JA 248

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.96 0.16
Recency 31 May 2016 23 May 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 6 Watt

A9-9410 has a 500% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 years.

GX-210JA, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.

The A9-9410 is our recommended choice as it beats the GX-210JA in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and GX-210JA, 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 GX-210JA
GX-210JA

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
2.5 4 votes

Rate GX-210JA on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9410 or GX-210JA, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.