A6-9500 vs Atom x7-E3950

A6-9500 vs Atom x7-E3950 Performance Spectrum

A6-9500

2 / 2

1,876

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom x7-E3950

4 / 4

1,864

0.0%

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.

A6-9500 vs Atom x7-E3950 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.

A6-9500 vs Atom x7-E3950: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-9500

2017

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $101 MSRP, while Atom x7-E3950 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌441.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 12W.

Atom x7-E3950

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 12W instead of 65W, a 53W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,864 vs 1,876).

Quick Answers

So, is A6-9500 better than Atom x7-E3950?

Yes. A6-9500 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A6-9500 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-9500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-9500 is the better buy right now. A6-9500 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $101 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (18.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A6-9500 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-9500 vs Atom x7-E3950 Technical Specifications

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

A6-9500

The A6-9500 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 27 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 1,876 points. Launch price was $64.

Atom x7-E3950

The Atom x7-E3950 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 12 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,864 points. Launch price was $57.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-9500 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Atom x7-E3950 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Atom x7-E3950 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the A6-9500 versus 2 GHz on the Atom x7-E3950 — a 62.1% clock advantage for the A6-9500 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The A6-9500 uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Atom x7-E3950 uses Apollo Lake (2014−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A6-9500 scores 1,876 against the Atom x7-E3950's 1,864 — a 0.6% lead for the A6-9500. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A6-9500	Atom x7-E3950
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+90%	2 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+119%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1024 kB	2 MB (total)+100%
Process	28 nm	14 nm-50%
Architecture	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)
PassMark	1,876	1,864
Geekbench 6 Single	—	245

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-9500 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Atom x7-E3950 uses FCBGA1296 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2400 memory speed. The A6-9500 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (A6-9500) vs 4 (Atom x7-E3950). PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-9500) vs 6 (Atom x7-E3950) — the A6-9500 offers 2 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM4 (A6-9500) and Apollo Lake (Atom x7-E3950).

Feature	A6-9500	Atom x7-E3950
Socket	AM4	FCBGA1296
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	LPDDR4-2400
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+700%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	8+33%	6

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (A6-9500) / VT-x, VT-d (Atom x7-E3950). Both include integrated graphics — AMD Radeon R5 (A6-9500) and HD Graphics 505 (Atom x7-E3950) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU.