Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs A9-9425

VS

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2029not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Celeron Dual-Core
Power efficiency10.91no data
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Penryn-1M (2009)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)1 May 2009 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 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 speed3.1 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rateno data800 MHz
L1 cache128K (per core)64 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB
Chip lithography28 nm45 nm
Die size124.5 mm2107 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million410 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 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
SocketFT4P (478)
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000. 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, RDRANDno data
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)no 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.



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
+120%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 687

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

A9-9425 2686
+49.5%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1797

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
+30.3%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 3329

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

A9-9425 2314
+45.3%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1593

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

A9-9425 25.83
+76.7%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 45.65

Pros & cons summary


Recency 31 May 2016 1 May 2009
Chip lithography 28 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

A9-9425 has an age advantage of 7 years, a 60.7% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between A9-9425 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000, 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
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Celeron Dual-Core T3000

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 1533 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 61 vote

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9425 or Celeron Dual-Core T3000, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.