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 A6-9500 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£35PassMark multi-core score:1874N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD A6-9500 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A6-9500
4.8/10

Overall score

Score
4.8/ 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 98% of models
Score components

40%

4.0

Technical score

25%

4.0

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

4.0

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 98% of processors
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components

70%

4.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 91%
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 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 86% of models
Score components

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

4.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 86%
4.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.0/ 10
✕
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
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models

4.0

Mark 6.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.1

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
1 review, with a printed score. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 92%
?

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
  • amd-a6-9500
  • amd-a6-9500
  • amd-a6-9500
amd-a6-9500
amd-a6-9500
amd-a6-9500
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD A6-9500

Based on 1 · 6

Reviewers like the low price, AM4 platform and everyday use, but processor performance disappoints and gaming splits opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD A6-9500

Based on 74 owners sharing their experience in online comments

27%positive14%mixed59%negative

Owners value its low cost and light-use ability, but weak gaming performance is the dominant complaint.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report about 10 to 30 fps in CS:GO, Dota 2, GTA V and Battlefield 1, often with the CPU maxed out.15
  • Owners say GTA V, Fortnite, Cities: Skylines and even Minecraft barely run or crash on the lobby screen, even at low settings.13
  • Owners say its two cores are not enough for demanding titles like Warzone, PUBG and Fortnite, which need more cores.7
  • Owners report stutters during play, such as CS:GO and Dota 2 stuttering even in the lobby, and Witcher 3 hitching for two seconds.6
  • Owners say Windows feels slow, with CPU use hitting 100% from just Chrome, and the PC freezing when many browsers or apps are open.6
  • Owners report missing textures in GTA V, and world textures that load slowly or not at all in other games.5
  • Owners say their results are lower than the review video, with CS:GO at 30 to 40 fps instead of the 70 to 80 shown.4
  • Owners say the chip bottlenecks stronger graphics cards such as the RX 570, so the GPU waits on the processor.3
  • Owners say the PC won't start on B450 or X470 motherboards, which do not support this APU, while A320 boards work.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A6-9500

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 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 86% of models
Score components:

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

4.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

4.0
Reviews score
4.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components:

70%

4.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.4
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 75.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
This processor supports X470, B450, X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 67.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
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, 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, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 97.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
3.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,874
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,874 in PassMark, which is lower than 95.4% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
?
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
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Radeon R5
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
6
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,029 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,029 MHz which is higher than that of 94.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 68.7% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 6 W
Show more

AMD A6-9500 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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, 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, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD A6-9500 is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 2.94x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,029 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,029 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Core
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD A6-9500 is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 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, 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, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Core
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2.94x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,029 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,029 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 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
  • 83.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,874 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,874 vs 11,469
  • 87.7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (641 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    641 vs 5,209
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.0/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models

    4.0

    Mark 6.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    1 review, with a printed score. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.0 vs 6.7
  • 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
  • 36.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,617 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,617 vs 2,558
  • 58.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (641 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    641 vs 1,535
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Bristol Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Bristol 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
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.0/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models

    4.0

    Mark 6.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    1 review, with a printed score. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.0 vs 6.7
  • 44.4% lower sentiment score
    4.0 vs 7.2
  • 14% worse value for money
    AMD A6-9500 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.39 vs 7.3).
    6.39 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 4 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
    May 2016
    2016 vs 2020
  • 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
  • 83.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,874 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,874 vs 11,469
  • 87.7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (641 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    641 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 36.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,617 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,617 vs 2,558
  • 58.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (641 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    641 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 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.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Bristol Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Bristol 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
  • 41.2% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (250 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    250 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 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
  • 37.4% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (3.1 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    3.1 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 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
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (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), MPEG-2 (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)
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (6 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    6 vs 24
  • 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
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
01/08/2022
Hands-on review · Half-Life 2 gameplay benchmark
Verdict
AMD A6-9500 plays Half-Life 2 well for a cheap build, but a first-gen Ryzen is now the better choice.
7.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
02/04/2021
Gaming test · older titles and benchmarks
Verdict
AMD A6-9500 is not the fastest, but it is a worthwhile budget chip for older games with an easy upgrade path.
3.0
Gear Seekers
≈ estimated
01/11/2018
Gaming benchmark · dedicated GPU pairing and Intel comparison
Verdict
AMD A6-9500 is not viable for gaming, even with a dedicated GPU; cheaper Ryzen or used Intel chips perform better.
6.0
Technology Move
≈ estimated
14/04/2019
Short review · overview and game frame rates
Verdict
AMD A6-9500 is the cheapest AM4 chip and fine for light gaming at low settings, but expectations must stay low.
7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
09/04/2018
Hands-on review · benchmarks and game tests
Verdict
AMD A6-9500 is underpowered, but it is a cheap route onto AM4 for upgraders or basic everyday use.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

2.0
chip.de
✓ explicit
27/10/2017
Lab test · Desktop processor
Verdict
The AMD A6-9500 is a basic two-core desktop chip with decent built-in Radeon R5 graphics, but its CPU is very weak and it stands out in no test.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A6-9500

  • Extremely affordable entry-level pricing
  • Uses the AM4 socket, providing a cheap path for later upgrades to Ryzen processors
  • Includes integrated Radeon R5 graphics, removing the need for a dedicated GPU for basic tasks
  • Sufficient for very basic office work, web surfing, and simple applications
  • Features an unlocked multiplier allowing for potential overclocking

What customers don't like about AMD A6-9500

  • Severe performance limitations with only 2 cores and 2 threads
  • Frequent lagging and high CPU usage (often hitting 100%) even with few browser tabs open
  • Significant bottleneck for dedicated graphics cards in gaming scenarios
  • Outdated Bristol Ridge architecture is much less efficient than newer Zen-based processors
  • Unreliable for multitasking or modern gaming, with some users reporting system instability and BSODs
  • Painfully slow compared to even older budget CPUs from competitors

Verdict

The AMD A6-9500 is a 7th Generation Bristol Ridge APU featuring 2 cores and 2 threads with a 3.5 GHz base clock and a 3.8 GHz max boost. Built on a 28nm process for the AM4 socket, it includes integrated Radeon R5 graphics (6 cores at 1029 MHz), supports DDR4 memory up to 2400 MT/s, and has a 65W TDP. Main pros include its affordability, low power consumption, and compatibility with the future-proof AM4 platform which allows for easy later upgrades to Ryzen processors. However, its main cons are significantly dated performance, lack of an L3 cache, and limited multitasking capabilities, making it unsuitable for modern gaming or intensive productivity tasks.

Compare AMD A6-9500 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 A6-9500 and other processors

No results found