Follow us
Share link
Submit benchmark
VS
AMD FX-6300 vs AMD A9-9410
Last updated:
Benchmarks
Performance Overview
Average performance across multiple benchmarks
Single-core performance
Multi-core performance
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Single-core performance
AMD FX-6300
100 %
6C / 6T · 4.10 GHz
AMD A9-9410
67 %
2C / 2T · 3.50 GHz
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Multi-core performance
AMD FX-6300
100 %
6C / 6T · 4.10 GHz
AMD A9-9410
29 %
2C / 2T · 3.20 GHz
More benchmarks
Geekbench 6 (SC)
1,989 entries
1,989 entries
Geekbench 6 (MC)
1,927 entries
1,927 entries
Cinebench R20 (SC)
666 entries
666 entries
Geekbench 5 (SC)
2,512 entries
2,512 entries
Cinebench R20 (MC)
615 entries
615 entries
Geekbench 5 (MC)
2,483 entries
2,483 entries
FP32 SP (iGPU)
2,219 entries
2,219 entries
Blender 3.1 Benchmark
213 entries
213 entries
PassMark CPU-Mark
2,504 entries
2,504 entries
Blender 2.81 (bmw27)
190 entries
190 entries
CPU-Z Benchmark 17 (SC)
250 entries
250 entries
CPU-Z Benchmark 17 (MC)
751 entries
751 entries
V-Ray CPU-Render
251 entries
251 entries
Cinebench R15 (SC)
1,113 entries
1,113 entries
Cinebench R15 (MC)
1,110 entries
1,110 entries
Geekbench 3 (SC)
945 entries
945 entries
Geekbench 3 (MC)
941 entries
941 entries
Cinebench R11.5 (SC)
826 entries
826 entries
Cinebench R11.5 (MC)
837 entries
837 entries
Specifications
At a glance
|
Wischen
|
AMD FX-6300 | AMD A9-9410 |
|---|---|---|
| Family | AMD FX (30) | AMD A (112) |
| CPU group | AMD FX-6300 (2) | AMD A9-9000 (4) |
| Architecture | Vishera (Bulldozer) | Stoney Ridge (Excavator) |
| Technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Segment | Desktop | Notebook |
| Socket | AM3+ | FP4 |
| Predecessor | ||
| Successor |
CPU Cores and Base Frequency
|
Wischen
|
AMD FX-6300 | AMD A9-9410 |
|---|---|---|
| CPU Cores / Threads | 6 / 6 | 2 / 2 |
| Hyperthreading / SMT | ✗ | ✗ |
| Core architecture | normal | normal |
| Cores: | 6x | 2x |
| Frequency: | 3.50 GHz | 2.90 GHz |
| Turbo (1 Core): | 4.10 GHz | 3.50 GHz |
| Turbo (All Cores): | 4.10 GHz | 3.20 GHz |
| L2-Cache | ||
| L3-Cache | 8.00 MB | 2.00 MB |
| Overclocking | ✓ | ✗ |
Integrated graphics (iGPU)
|
Wischen
|
AMD FX-6300 | AMD A9-9410 |
|---|---|---|
| GPU name | no iGPU | AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) |
| GPU frequency | 0.80 GHz | |
| CUs / Shader | / | 3 / 192 |
| Raytracing | ✗ | ✗ |
| Max. displays | 3 | |
| Max. GPU Memory | 2 GB | |
| Technology | 28 nm | |
| Release date | Q2/2016 |
NPU AI performance
|
Wischen
|
AMD FX-6300 | AMD A9-9410 |
|---|---|---|
| AI hardware | ||
| AI specifications | ||
| NPU + CPU + iGPU |
Memory & PCIe
|
Wischen
|
AMD FX-6300 | AMD A9-9410 |
|---|---|---|
| Memory | DDR3-1866 (29.9 GB/s) | DDR4-2133 (17.1 GB/s) |
| Max. Memory | 32 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory channels | 2 | 1 |
| ECC | No | No |
| PCIe | 3.0 | 3.0 x 8 |
| PCIe Bandwidth | 7.9 GB/s |
Thermal Management
|
Wischen
|
AMD FX-6300 | AMD A9-9410 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 95 W | 25 W |
| TDP (PL2) | ||
| TDP up | ||
| TDP down | 10 W | |
| T. junction max. | 71 °C | 90 °C |
Technical details
|
Wischen
|
AMD FX-6300 | AMD A9-9410 |
|---|---|---|
| Chip design | Unknown | Unknown |
| AES-NI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Operating systems | Windows 10, Linux | |
| Instruction set | x86-64 (64 bit) | x86-64 (64 bit) |
| ISA extensions | SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, FMA4 | SSE4a, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, FMA4 |
| Release date | Q4/2012 | Q2/2017 |
| Release price | 95 $ | |
| Documents |
User Reviews
Your rating
Here you can rate one or both of the processors. The average rating of AMD FX-6300 is 4.2 stars (63 ratings), while AMD A9-9410 has received 2.5 stars (4 ratings).
Click on the stars to rate one or both processors.
Most popular CPUs in both categories
1
Apple M5 Max (18-CPU 32-GPU)
18C / 18T · 4.61 GHz
2
Apple M3 Ultra (28-CPU 60-GPU)
28C / 28T · 4.06 GHz
3
Apple M2 Ultra (76-GPU)
24C / 24T · 3.50 GHz
4
Apple M5 Max (18-CPU 40-GPU)
18C / 18T · 4.61 GHz
5
Apple M3 Ultra (32-CPU 80-GPU)
32C / 32T · 4.06 GHz
6
Apple M1 Ultra (48-GPU)
20C / 20T · 3.20 GHz
7
Apple M5 Pro (15-CPU 16-GPU)
15C / 15T · 4.61 GHz
8
AMD FX-6300
6C / 6T · 4.10 GHz
9
AMD A9-9410
2C / 2T · 3.50 GHz
Popular Comparisons
