A9-9400 SoC vs Celeron M 520
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 520 and A9-9400 SoC processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 520 and A9-9400 SoC 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 cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 160 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | no data | 125 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.95V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 520 and A9-9400 SoC 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 configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | FT4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 520 and A9-9400 SoC. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M 520 and A9-9400 SoC technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 520 and A9-9400 SoC are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 520 and A9-9400 SoC. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Radeon R5 3CU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 520 and A9-9400 SoC.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 10 Watt |
A9-9400 SoC has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 520 and A9-9400 SoC. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 520 is a notebook processor while A9-9400 SoC is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 520 and A9-9400 SoC, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
