Celeron M 560 vs A9-9425

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
+409%
Celeron M 560
2008
1 core / 1 thread, 30 Watt
0.34

A9-9425 outperforms Celeron M 560 by a whopping 409% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and Celeron M 560 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20433078
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Celeron M
Power efficiency10.911.07
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)1 May 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and Celeron M 560 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speed3.1 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz2.13 GHz
Bus rateno data533 MHz
L1 cache128K (per core)64 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography28 nm65 nm
Die size124.5 mm2143 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million291 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and Celeron M 560 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
SocketFT4PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt30 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Celeron M 560. 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 M 560 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Celeron M 560. 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) ( - 900 MHz)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.


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 1.73
+409%
Celeron M 560 0.34

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
+183%
Celeron M 560 535

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
+33.8%
Celeron M 560 2008

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
+116%
Celeron M 560 2008

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.73 0.34
Recency 31 May 2016 1 May 2008
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 30 Watt

A9-9425 has a 408.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 560 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Celeron M 560, 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 M 560
Celeron M 560

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 1537 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 43 votes

Rate Celeron M 560 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 M 560, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.