A8-3800 vs A9-9425
Aggregate performance score
A9-9425 outperforms A8-3800 by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A9-9425 and A8-3800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2043 | 2286 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.91 | 1.88 |
| Architecture codename | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 30 June 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A9-9425 and A8-3800 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 124.5 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A9-9425 and A8-3800 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 | FT4 | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and A8-3800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and A8-3800 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and A8-3800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 900 MHz) | AMD Radeon HD 6550D |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.73 | 1.29 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.48 | 1.04 |
| Recency | 31 May 2016 | 30 June 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
A9-9425 has a 34.1% higher aggregate performance score, 42.3% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.
A8-3800, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-3800 in performance tests.
Be aware that A9-9425 is a notebook processor while A8-3800 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and A8-3800, 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.
