A9-9425 vs Athlon II X4 641

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II X4 641
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 100 Watt
1.46
A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
+18.5%

A9-9425 outperforms Athlon II X4 641 by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II X4 641 and A9-9425 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21652029
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency1.3810.91
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date6 February 2012 (12 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Athlon II X4 641 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.8 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)128K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size228 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II X4 641 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 configuration11
SocketFM1FT4
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 641 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 Athlon II X4 641 and A9-9425 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 641 and A9-9425. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD 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.

Athlon II X4 641 1.46
A9-9425 1.73
+18.5%

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.

Athlon II X4 641 2313
+53%
A9-9425 1512

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.

Athlon II X4 641 374
+16.9%
A9-9425 320

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.

Athlon II X4 641 1256
+161%
A9-9425 482

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.46 1.73
Recency 6 February 2012 31 May 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 15 Watt

Athlon II X4 641 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

A9-9425, on the other hand, has a 18.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 641 in performance tests.

Note that Athlon II X4 641 is a desktop processor while A9-9425 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 641 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.


AMD Athlon II X4 641
Athlon II X4 641
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.


3.7 145 votes

Rate Athlon II X4 641 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 Athlon II X4 641 or A9-9425, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.