Celeron T1600 vs A9-9425

VS

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and Celeron T1600 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 Ridgeno data
Power efficiency10.87no data
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)no data
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)1 October 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and Celeron T1600 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)no data
Threads2no data
Base clock speed3.1 GHz1.66 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHzno data
L1 cache128K (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)no data
L3 cacheno data1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography28 nm65 nm
Die size124.5 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data1.075V-1.175V

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and Celeron T1600 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 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Celeron T1600. 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+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-

Security technologies

A9-9425 and Celeron T1600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and Celeron T1600 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Celeron T1600. 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
+175%
Celeron T1600 551

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
+66.7%
Celeron T1600 192

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
+36.5%
Celeron T1600 353

Pros & cons summary


Recency 31 May 2016 1 October 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

A9-9425 has an age advantage of 7 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between A9-9425 and Celeron T1600. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Celeron T1600, 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 T1600
Celeron T1600

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
2.6 7 votes

Rate Celeron T1600 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 T1600, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.