OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD A9 9425 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£320PassMark benchmark result:1524N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.7 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD A9 9425 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.2

Overall score

Score
3.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

90%

3.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 99% of processors
3.2

Technical score

Technical score
3.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

60%

2.0

Performance

18%

3.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 99% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £320

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 9425

Technical score
Technical score
3.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

60%

2.0

Performance

18%

3.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated Graphics

3.2
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD A9 9425 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
4.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

60%

3.2

Overall score

40%

8.8

Price

4.9
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
CPU threads
2
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94% of processors and equal to 5.9% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.7 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.7 GHz
▼ Worse than 73% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.7 GHz which is lower than that of 72.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.1 GHz
▼ Worse than 82% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.1 GHz which is lower than that of 81.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
28 nm
Semiconductor size
28 nm
▼ Worse than 95% of models
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 3% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
▼ Worse than 95% of models
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 2.9% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
L3 cache
0 MB
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
160 KB
L1 cache
160 KB
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 160 KB which is smaller than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
▼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 75.5% of processors and equal to 8.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2133 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2133 MHz
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2133 MHz, which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to 5.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
▼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Radeon R5
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R5
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R5
▼ Worse than 84% of models
This processor uses the Radeon R5 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 84.2% of processors and equal to that in 0.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
3
Integrated GPU execution units
3
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 3 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 93.1% of processors and equal to 2.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
758 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
758 MHz
▲ Better than 86% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 758 MHz which is higher than that of 86.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode)
▼ Worse than 75% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 74.9% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
▲ Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
▲ Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 10 W
Show more

AMD A9 9425 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    90 °C
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    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, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 29.9% smaller die size
    Die size
    124 mm²
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Turbo Core
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 2.17x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    758 MHz
    ▲ Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (758 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    758 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    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, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Turbo Core
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 29.9% smaller die size
    Die size
    124 mm²
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • 2.17x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    758 MHz
    ▲ Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (758 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    758 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    90 °C
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 85.6% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,524
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,524 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,524 vs 10,572.5
  • 84.2% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    763
    ▼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (763 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    763 vs 4,829
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 47% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,325
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,325 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,325 vs 2,500
  • 89.8% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    284
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (284 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    284 vs 2,791
  • 48.1% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    763
    ▼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (763 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    763 vs 1,471
  • 60.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    195
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (195 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    195 vs 489
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Stoney Ridge
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Stoney Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Stoney Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 34.7% worse value for money
    AMD A9 9425 has worse value for money than the average processor (4.87 vs 6.6).
    4.87 vs 6.56
  • 28% more expensive
    AMD A9 9425 is more expensive than the average processor (£320 vs £250).
    £320 vs £250
  • 4 years older release date
    Release date
    2016
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
    May 2016
    2016 vs 2020
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    ▼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 85.6% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,524
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,524 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,524 vs 10,572.5
  • 84.2% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    763
    ▼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (763 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    763 vs 4,829
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 47% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,325
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,325 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,325 vs 2,500
  • 89.8% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    284
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (284 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    284 vs 2,791
  • 48.1% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    763
    ▼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (763 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    763 vs 1,471
  • 60.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    195
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (195 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    195 vs 489
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    ▼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 14% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.7 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 3.1 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
    Microarchitecture codename
    Stoney Ridge
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    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
    Semiconductor size
    28 nm
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 58.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    160 KB
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
    N. of transistors
    1.2 billion
    ▼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    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
    Foundry
    GlobalFoundries 28 nm
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    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
  • 62.7% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    17.1 GB/s
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (17.1 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    17.1 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 27.3% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,133 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2133 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2133 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    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
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
    Memory channels
    1
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    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
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode)
    ▼ Worse than 75% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 87.5% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    3
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon R5
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    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
  • 10 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    90 °C
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

B
browser.geekbench.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD A9-9425 Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD A9-9425 APU (2016 M.SR) - UserBenchmark
C
computerbild.de
24/03/2020
Summary of the review
Laptops from 300 euros: Budget laptops for the home office in review
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookinfo.de
12/03/2019
Summary of the review
Lenovo IdeaPad V145-15AST 81MT002AGE Reviews & Specs
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD A9 9425

  • Capable of handling basic daily tasks like web browsing, document editing, and checking emails
  • Commonly found in budget-friendly, entry-level laptops
  • Low power consumption (15W TDP) allows for better battery life in some thin-and-light laptop designs
  • Includes integrated Radeon R5 graphics which can handle older or very light games at low settings
  • Supports DDR4 RAM, providing a slight speed advantage over older DDR3-based entry-level chips

What we don't like about AMD A9 9425

  • Poor multitasking performance due to having only 2 cores and 2 threads
  • Struggles significantly with modern games, often failing to maintain playable frame rates even on low settings
  • High CPU usage is common; background tasks like Windows updates or anti-virus can slow the system to a crawl
  • Outdated 28nm architecture makes it much less efficient and slower than newer Ryzen-based alternatives
  • Often becomes a bottleneck in systems, even when paired with 8GB or 16GB of RAM

Verdict

The AMD A9-9425 is an entry-level dual-core processor from the Stoney Ridge APU series, released in mid-2018 for budget laptops. It features a base clock speed of 3.1 GHz with a turbo boost up to 3.7 GHz, 1 MB of L2 cache, and an integrated Radeon R5 GPU with 192 shader units operating at up to 900 MHz. Its main advantages include a low thermal design power (TDP) of 15W, making it suitable for thin-and-light devices, and support for modern single-channel DDR4-2133 memory and H.265 video decoding. However, its significant cons include a legacy 28 nm manufacturing process that results in poor energy efficiency by modern standards, and very limited multi-threaded performance that restricts the chip to basic office tasks and web browsing.

Compare AMD A9 9425 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 9425 and other processors

No results found