Core 2 Duo E7400 vs A9-9425

VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
+166%
Core 2 Duo E7400
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.65

A9-9425 outperforms Core 2 Duo E7400 by a whopping 166% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and Core 2 Duo E7400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20312750
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Bristol Ridgeno data
Power efficiency10.910.95
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Wolfdale (2008−2010)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)October 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and Core 2 Duo E7400 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 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz2.8 GHz
Bus rateno data1066 MHz
L1 cache128K (per core)64 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)3 MB (shared)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm45 nm
Die size124.5 mm282 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °C74 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million228 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.3625V

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and Core 2 Duo E7400 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 configuration11
SocketFT4LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Core 2 Duo E7400. 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+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

A9-9425 and Core 2 Duo E7400 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 Core 2 Duo E7400 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Core 2 Duo E7400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR1, DDR2, DDR3

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.


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
+166%
Core 2 Duo E7400 0.65

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 1512
+46.8%
Core 2 Duo E7400 1030

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
+0.6%
Core 2 Duo E7400 318

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
Core 2 Duo E7400 512
+6.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.73 0.65
Chip lithography 28 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 65 Watt

A9-9425 has a 166.2% higher aggregate performance score, a 60.7% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E7400 in performance tests.

Be aware that A9-9425 is a notebook processor while Core 2 Duo E7400 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Core 2 Duo E7400, 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 Core 2 Duo E7400
Core 2 Duo E7400

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 1534 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 338 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo E7400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9425 or Core 2 Duo E7400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.