A9-9425 vs FX-4320
Aggregate performance score
FX-4320 outperforms A9-9425 by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-4320 and A9-9425 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1921 | 2025 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD Bristol Ridge |
| Power efficiency | 1.98 | 10.88 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
FX-4320 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4096 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 124.5 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on FX-4320 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM3+ | FT4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4320 and A9-9425. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, 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 FX-4320 and A9-9425 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4320 and A9-9425. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4320 and A9-9425.
| PCIe version | Not Listed | no 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.06 | 1.79 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 31 May 2016 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
FX-4320 has a 15.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
A9-9425, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.
The FX-4320 is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9425 in performance tests.
Note that FX-4320 is a desktop processor while A9-9425 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4320 and A9-9425, 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.
