A9-9425 vs PRO A6-8570

VS

Aggregate performance score

PRO A6-8570
2018
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
1.20
A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
+44.2%

A9-9425 outperforms PRO A6-8570 by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing PRO A6-8570 and A9-9425 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23522045
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency1.7510.91
Architecture codenameCarrizo (2015−2018)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release dateOctober 2018 (6 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

PRO A6-8570 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed3.5 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cacheno data128K (per core)
L2 cache1024 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm28 nm
Die size250 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors3,100 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-

Compatibility

Information on PRO A6-8570 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 configuration11
SocketAM4FT4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by PRO A6-8570 and A9-9425. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, 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++
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by PRO A6-8570 and A9-9425 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by PRO A6-8570 and A9-9425. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR4
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 GraphicsAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 900 MHz)
iGPU core count6no data
Switchable graphics+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of PRO A6-8570 and A9-9425 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPortn/a-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by PRO A6-8570 and A9-9425 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by PRO A6-8570 and A9-9425.

PCIe version3.0no 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.

PRO A6-8570 1.20
A9-9425 1.73
+44.2%

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.

PRO A6-8570 1906
+26.1%
A9-9425 1512

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.20 1.73
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 15 Watt

A9-9425 has a 44.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the PRO A6-8570 in performance tests.

Note that PRO A6-8570 is a desktop processor while A9-9425 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between PRO A6-8570 and A9-9425, 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 PRO A6-8570
PRO A6-8570
AMD A9-9425
A9-9425

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.


3.9 32 votes

Rate PRO A6-8570 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1537 votes

Rate A9-9425 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about PRO A6-8570 or A9-9425, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.