OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD A6-9220C review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£220PassMark multi-core score:1053N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.7 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):?

AMD A6-9220C Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.7/10

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components

40%

3.3

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 87% of processors
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
3.3

Technical score

Technical score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

60%

2.3

Performance

18%

3.6

Architecture

10%

3.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 99%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £220
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A6-9220C

Technical score
Technical score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

60%

2.3

Performance

18%

3.6

Architecture

10%

3.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

3.3
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

6.8
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 99.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.7 GHz which is lower than that of 96.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.8 GHz which is lower than that of 95.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,053
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,053 in PassMark, which is lower than 99% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
28 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 28 nm process node, which is older than that of 94.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 28 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 94.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
160 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 160 KB which is smaller than that of 82.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-1866 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 85.9% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R5
This processor uses the Radeon R5 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 81.8% of processors and equal to that in 0.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
3
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 3 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 92.9% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
?
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 76.1% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
?
Base power (PL1)
?
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 10 W
Show more

AMD A6-9220C vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 29.9% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (124 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    124 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • 29.9% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (124 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    124 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 90.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,053 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,053 vs 11,469
  • 88.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (595 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    595 vs 5,209
  • 61.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (995 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    995 vs 2,558
  • 38.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 70.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (459 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    459 vs 1,535
  • 66.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (163 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    163 vs 490
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Stoney Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Stoney Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 7.4% worse value for money
    AMD A6-9220C has worse value for money than the average processor (6.79 vs 7.3).
    6.79 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 90.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,053 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,053 vs 11,469
  • 88.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (595 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    595 vs 5,209
  • 61.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (995 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    995 vs 2,558
  • 38.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 70.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (459 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    459 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 66.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (163 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    163 vs 490
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 10 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (18 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    18 vs 28
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Stoney Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Stoney Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (28 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    28 nm vs 12 nm
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 58.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (160 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    160 KB vs 384 KB
  • 75.8% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 28 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 28 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 68.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (14.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    14.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 41.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 87.5% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    8 GB vs 64 GB
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-1,866 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    1 vs 2
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon R5 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon R5 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 87.5% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (3 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    3 vs 24
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 10 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A6-9220C

  • Extremely affordable price point for budget-conscious buyers
  • Very low power consumption (6W TDP) leading to long battery life
  • Sufficient for very basic tasks like email, single-tab browsing, and word processing
  • Enables thin, light, and often fanless (silent) laptop designs
  • Performs significantly better when running lightweight Linux distributions instead of Windows
  • Integrated Radeon R4 graphics can handle very old or 2D indie games

What customers don't like about AMD A6-9220C

  • Severe performance lag and freezing when multitasking or opening multiple browser tabs
  • Often struggles with modern operating systems like Windows 10/11, especially during background updates
  • Integrated 28nm architecture is considered outdated and inefficient compared to newer 14nm or 7nm chips
  • High CPU usage (often hitting 100%) during simple tasks like 480p/720p video streaming
  • Poor performance in modern video conferencing apps like Zoom
  • Limited upgrade path as it is often paired with soldered (non-upgradable) RAM and eMMC storage
  • Inadequate for modern gaming or any content creation software

Verdict

The AMD A6-9220C is an entry-level mobile processor based on the Stoney Ridge (7th Gen APU) architecture, specifically designed for ultra-thin Chromebooks. It features 2 cores and 2 threads with a base clock speed of 1.8 GHz and a boost frequency of up to 2.7 GHz, supported by 1 MB of L2 cache and integrated Radeon R5 graphics. Its primary pros include an extremely low TDP of 6W, which allows for power-efficient, fanless designs, and support for modern features like DDR4-2133 memory and AVX2 instruction sets. However, it suffers from significant performance limitations due to its older 28nm manufacturing process, single-channel memory interface, and poor multi-threaded capabilities, making it unsuitable for demanding modern applications or gaming.

Compare AMD A6-9220C with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD A6-9220C and other processors

No results found