A4-9120C vs i7-640M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-640M
2010
2 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.31
+143%
A4-9120C
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
0.54

Core i7-640M outperforms A4-9120C by a whopping 143% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-640M and A4-9120C processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22772857
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core i7AMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency3.548.52
Architecture codenameArrandale (2010−2011)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date13 September 2010 (14 years ago)6 January 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$346no data

Detailed specifications

Core i7-640M and A4-9120C 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.8 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.46 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus typeDMI 1.0no data
Bus rate1 × 2.5 GT/sno data
Multiplier2116
L1 cache128 KB160 KB
L2 cache512 KB1 MB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size81+114 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors382 Million1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-640M and A4-9120C 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketBGA1288,PGA988BGA
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-640M and A4-9120C. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2Virtualization,
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX-+
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology+no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Core i7-640M and A4-9120C 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 Core i7-640M and A4-9120C are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-640M and A4-9120C. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth17.051 GB/s14.936 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel ProcessorsAMD Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 600 MHz)
Clear Video+no data
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency766 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i7-640M and A4-9120C integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-640M and A4-9120C.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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.

i7-640M 1.31
+143%
A4-9120C 0.54

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.

i7-640M 2073
+144%
A4-9120C 850

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.31 0.54
Integrated graphics card 0.77 1.17
Recency 13 September 2010 6 January 2019
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 6 Watt

i7-640M has a 142.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more threads.

A4-9120C, on the other hand, has 51.9% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 8 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.

The Core i7-640M is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-9120C in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-640M and A4-9120C, 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 Core i7-640M
Core i7-640M
AMD A4-9120C
A4-9120C

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.


4.2 524 votes

Rate Core i7-640M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 80 votes

Rate A4-9120C on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-640M or A4-9120C, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.