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 A9-9420E review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark multi-core score:1096N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.7 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

AMD A9-9420E 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
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 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 83% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 83%
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 98% of models
Score components

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

3.2

Architecture

10%

3.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 98%
?

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~ £260
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 A9-9420E

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 98% of models
Score components:

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

3.2

Architecture

10%

3.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

3.3
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 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 83% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

6.7
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, XOP, TBM
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, TBM instruction sets, which is broader support than 96.2% 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
1,096
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,096 in PassMark, which is lower than 98.8% 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
2,133 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 76.4% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2133 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2133 MHz, which is lower than that of 78.8% of processors and equal to 5.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
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
720 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 720 MHz which is higher than that of 85.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 57.2% of processors and equal to 9.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD A9-9420E vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 86.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 29.7% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (124.5 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    124.5 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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 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 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 2.06x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (720 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    720 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 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, XOP, TBM 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 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).
    Turbo Core
    3 vs 2
  • 29.7% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (124.5 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    124.5 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2.06x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (720 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    720 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 86.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 94% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (310 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    310 vs 5,209
  • 90.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,096 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,096 vs 11,469
  • 63.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (945 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    945 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
  • 71.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (442 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    442 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
  • 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
  • 8.2% worse value for money
    AMD A9-9420E has worse value for money than the average processor (6.74 vs 7.3).
    6.74 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, 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
  • 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
  • 94% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (310 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    310 vs 5,209
  • 90.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,096 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,096 vs 11,469
  • 63.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (945 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    945 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
  • 71.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (442 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    442 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
  • 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
  • 63.5% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (17.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    17.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 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
  • 33.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2133 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,133 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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
  • 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) 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) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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 A9-9420E

  • Extremely low power consumption (6W TDP), which aids battery life and allows for fanless, silent designs.
  • Capable of handling basic productivity tasks like web browsing, checking email, and using office software.
  • Suitable for media consumption, such as watching movies, provided hardware decoding is supported.
  • Can run older or very light games (e.g., Minecraft, Counter-Strike: Source) at low-to-medium settings.
  • Includes integrated Radeon R5 graphics, which is adequate for simple graphical needs without a dedicated GPU.

What customers don't like about AMD A9-9420E

  • Very poor multi-core performance due to having only two weak CPU cores.
  • Frequent 100% CPU usage even during light background tasks like Windows updates or antivirus scans, causing system lag.
  • Struggles significantly with modern gaming; most recent titles will not run or will have unplayable frame rates.
  • Single-channel memory support limits potential performance gains from RAM upgrades.
  • General system responsiveness is often reported as 'choppy' or 'slow,' especially when paired with a traditional hard drive instead of an SSD.

Verdict

The AMD A9-9420e is an entry-level mobile APU from the Stoney Ridge architecture (7th generation), featuring 2 CPU cores and 2 threads with a base clock speed of 1.8 GHz and a turbo boost up to 2.7 GHz. Built on a 28nm process, it integrates Radeon R5 graphics with 192 shader units and supports single-channel DDR4-2133 memory. Its primary advantages are an exceptionally low 6W Thermal Design Power (TDP) and low heat output, which enable completely fanless and silent laptop designs suitable for basic office productivity and web browsing. However, it faces significant drawbacks, including very limited multi-core performance for demanding tasks, a single-channel memory controller that can bottle neck the integrated GPU, and an overall performance level that struggles with modern gaming or complex multitasking.

Compare AMD A9-9420E 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 A9-9420E and other processors

No results found