A8-3510MX vs A9-9425

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.79
+67.3%

A9-9425 outperforms A8-3510MX by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and A8-3510MX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20262437
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeAMD A-Series
Power efficiency10.882.17
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)14 June 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and A8-3510MX 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed3.1 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz2.5 GHz
L1 cache128K (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size124.5 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and A8-3510MX 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
SocketFT4FS1
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt45 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and A8-3510MX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and A8-3510MX are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and A8-3510MX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)AMD Radeon HD 6620G

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.

A9-9425 1.79
+67.3%
A8-3510MX 1.07

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.

A9-9425 1513
A8-3510MX 1631
+7.8%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

A9-9425 320
+37.3%
A8-3510MX 233

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

A9-9425 482
A8-3510MX 631
+30.9%

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.

A9-9425 4338
A8-3510MX 6158
+42%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.79 1.07
Integrated graphics card 1.48 0.88
Recency 31 May 2016 14 June 2011
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 45 Watt

A9-9425 has a 67.3% higher aggregate performance score, 68.2% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

A8-3510MX, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-3510MX in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and A8-3510MX, 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 A9-9425
A9-9425
AMD A8-3510MX
A8-3510MX

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.


3.5 1523 votes

Rate A9-9425 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 42 votes

Rate A8-3510MX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9425 or A8-3510MX, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.