A9-9425 vs Apple M2

VS

Aggregate performance score

Apple M2
2022
8 cores / 8 threads, 20 Watt
9.40
+443%
A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73

Apple M2 outperforms A9-9425 by a whopping 443% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Apple M2 and A9-9425 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking8062029
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesApple Apple M-SeriesAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency44.4810.91
Architecture codenameno dataStoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date10 June 2022 (2 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Apple M2 and A9-9425 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads82
Base clock speed2.424 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.48 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache2 MB128K (per core)
L2 cache20 MB1 MB (per core)
Chip lithography5 nm28 nm
Die sizeno data124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors20000 Million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-

Compatibility

Information on Apple M2 and A9-9425 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 configurationno data1
Socketno dataFT4
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Apple M2 and A9-9425. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Apple M2 and A9-9425 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Apple M2 and A9-9425. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardApple M2 10-Core GPU ( - 1398 MHz)AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)

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.

Apple M2 9.40
+443%
A9-9425 1.73

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.

Apple M2 14933
+888%
A9-9425 1512

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Apple M2 1215
+872%
A9-9425 125

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Apple M2 223
+193%
A9-9425 76

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.40 1.73
Recency 10 June 2022 31 May 2016
Physical cores 8 2
Threads 8 2
Chip lithography 5 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 15 Watt

Apple M2 has a 443.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

A9-9425, on the other hand, has 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Apple M2 is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9425 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M2 and A9-9425, 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.


Apple M2
M2
AMD A9-9425
A9-9425

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.


3.5 602 votes

Rate Apple M2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1534 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Apple M2 or A9-9425, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.