A9-9420e vs Celeron N2940

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2940
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.66
A9-9420e
2018
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.70
+6.1%

A9-9420e outperforms Celeron N2940 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27402704
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency8.924.42
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date22 May 2014 (10 years ago)1 June 2018 (6 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e 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 speed1.83 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.25 GHzno data
L1 cache56K (per core)no data
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography22 nm28 nm
Die sizeno data124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C90 °C
Number of transistorsno data1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e 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
SocketFCBGA1170BGA
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataVirtualization,
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Smart Connect+no data

Security technologies

Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.32 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 SeriesAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency854 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes4no data
USB revision3.0 and 2.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no 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.

Celeron N2940 0.66
A9-9420e 0.70
+6.1%

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.

Celeron N2940 1044
A9-9420e 1107
+6%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Celeron N2940 111
+13.9%
A9-9420e 97

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.66 0.70
Recency 22 May 2014 1 June 2018
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 22 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 15 Watt

Celeron N2940 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

A9-9420e, on the other hand, has a 6.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 years.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2940 and A9-9420e, 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.


Intel Celeron N2940
Celeron N2940
AMD A9-9420e
A9-9420e

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.


2.6 106 votes

Rate Celeron N2940 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 149 votes

Rate A9-9420e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2940 or A9-9420e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.