A6-9225 vs Athlon X2 340

A6-9225 vs Athlon X2 340 Performance Spectrum

A6-9225

2 / 2

1,334

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Athlon X2 340

2 / 2

1,333

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A6-9225 vs Athlon X2 340 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A6-9225 vs Athlon X2 340: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A6-9225

2018

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 65W, a 64W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon R4, while Athlon X2 340 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon X2 340.

Athlon X2 340

2012

Why buy it

✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (AMD Stock), unlike A6-9225.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,333 vs 1,334).
❌Launch MSRP is still $30 MSRP, while A6-9225 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌6400% higher power demand at 65W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-9225 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-9225 better than Athlon X2 340?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon X2 340 is ahead with a 0.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A6-9225 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-9225 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

A6-9225 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A6-9225 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $30 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. Athlon X2 340 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (44.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on FM2.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A6-9225 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-9225 vs Athlon X2 340 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A6-9225

The A6-9225 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: BGA. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,334 points. Launch price was $70.

Athlon X2 340

The Athlon X2 340 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,333 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-9225 and Athlon X2 340 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the A6-9225 versus 3.6 GHz on the Athlon X2 340 — a 14.9% clock advantage for the Athlon X2 340 (base: 2.6 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The A6-9225 uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Athlon X2 340 uses Trinity (2012−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A6-9225 scores 1,334 against the Athlon X2 340's 1,333 — a 0.1% lead for the A6-9225.

Feature	A6-9225	Athlon X2 340
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz	3.6 GHz+16%
Base Clock	2.6 GHz	3.2 GHz+23%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB (total)
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Trinity (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,334	1,333
Geekbench 6 Single	—	397
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	549

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-9225 uses the BGA socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Athlon X2 340 uses FM2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the A6-9225 versus DDR3-1600 on the Athlon X2 340 — the A6-9225 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon X2 340 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A6-9225) vs 2 (Athlon X2 340). PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-9225) vs 16 (Athlon X2 340) — the Athlon X2 340 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD BGA soldered (A6-9225) and A55,A75,A85X,A88X (Athlon X2 340).

Feature	A6-9225	Athlon X2 340
Socket	BGA	FM2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133+33%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (A6-9225) / AMD-V (Athlon X2 340). The A6-9225 includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon R4), while the Athlon X2 340 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon X2 340 targets Desktop.