A10-9600P vs Athlon X4 840

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon X4 840
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
2.09
+42.2%
A10-9600P
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.47

Athlon X4 840 outperforms A10-9600P by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon X4 840 and A10-9600P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18742159
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Series4x AthlonAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency3.049.27
Architecture codenameKaveri (2014−2015)Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release dateAugust 2014 (10 years ago)1 June 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Athlon X4 840 and A10-9600P 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed3.1 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz3.3 GHz
L1 cache256Kno data
L2 cache4 MB2048 KB
Chip lithography28 nm28 nm
Die size245 mm2250 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistors2,411 million3100 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Athlon X4 840 and A10-9600P 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
SocketSocket FM2+FP4
Power consumption (TDP)65 watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 840 and A10-9600P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA+FMA4
AVX+-
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+
DualGraphics-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 840 and A10-9600P are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 840 and A10-9600P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3, DDR4
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R5 Graphics
iGPU core countno data6
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Athlon X4 840 and A10-9600P integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Athlon X4 840 and A10-9600P integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 840 and A10-9600P.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes168

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 X4 840 2.09
+42.2%
A10-9600P 1.47

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 X4 840 3325
+42.5%
A10-9600P 2333

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 X4 840 447
A10-9600P 462
+3.4%

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 X4 840 1117
+7.5%
A10-9600P 1039

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.09 1.47
Recency on August 2014 1 June 2016
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 15 Watt

Athlon X4 840 has a 42.2% higher aggregate performance score.

A10-9600P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

The Athlon X4 840 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-9600P in performance tests.

Note that Athlon X4 840 is a desktop processor while A10-9600P is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 840 and A10-9600P, 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 X4 840
Athlon X4 840
AMD A10-9600P
A10-9600P

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.


3.8 621 vote

Rate Athlon X4 840 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 326 votes

Rate A10-9600P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon X4 840 or A10-9600P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.