Athlon II X3 415e vs A9-9425
Aggregate performance score
A9-9425 outperforms Athlon II X3 415e by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A9-9425 and Athlon II X3 415e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2043 | 2544 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.97 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.91 | 1.91 |
| Architecture codename | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) | Rana (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 11 May 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A9-9425 and Athlon II X3 415e 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) | 3 (Tri-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 3 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 124.5 mm2 | 169 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 300 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A9-9425 and Athlon II X3 415e 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 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Athlon II X3 415e. 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 Athlon II X3 415e are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Athlon II X3 415e. 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 | AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 900 MHz) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9425 and Athlon II X3 415e.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.73 | 0.91 |
| Recency | 31 May 2016 | 11 May 2010 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 3 |
| Threads | 2 | 3 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
A9-9425 has a 90.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 60.7% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
Athlon II X3 415e, on the other hand, has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.
The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X3 415e in performance tests.
Be aware that A9-9425 is a notebook processor while Athlon II X3 415e is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Athlon II X3 415e, 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.
