A9-9410 vs Xeon E5335

A9-9410 vs Xeon E5335 Performance Spectrum

A9-9410

2 / 2

1,550

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon E5335

4 / 4

1,549

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.

A9-9410 vs Xeon E5335 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.

A9-9410 vs Xeon E5335: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A9-9410

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 80W, a 65W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R5, while Xeon E5335 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5335, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $150 MSRP, while Xeon E5335 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E5335

2006

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,549 vs 1,550).
❌433.3% higher power demand at 80W vs 15W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A9-9410 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A9-9410 better than Xeon E5335?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5335 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A9-9410 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A9-9410 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.9% 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, A9-9410 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?

A9-9410 is the better buy right now. A9-9410 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $150 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (10.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A9-9410 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2006) 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.

A9-9410 vs Xeon E5335 Technical Specifications

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

A9-9410

The A9-9410 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 31 May 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FP4. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 1,550 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon E5335

The Xeon E5335 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Clovertown (2006−2007) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 1,549 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The A9-9410 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Xeon E5335 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon E5335 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the A9-9410 versus 2 GHz on the Xeon E5335 — a 54.5% clock advantage for the A9-9410 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2 GHz). The A9-9410 uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Xeon E5335 uses Clovertown (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A9-9410 scores 1,550 against the Xeon E5335's 1,549 — a 0.1% lead for the A9-9410. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A9-9410 vs 8 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon E5335.

Feature	A9-9410	Xeon E5335
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz+75%	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+45%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	8 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	2048 kB	4 MB (total)+100%
Process	28 nm-57%	65 nm
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Clovertown (2006−2007)
PassMark	1,550	1,549
Geekbench 6 Single	350	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	650	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A9-9410 uses the FP4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5335 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A9-9410	Xeon E5335
Socket	FP4	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	8	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A9-9410) / not specified (Xeon E5335). The A9-9410 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R5), while the Xeon E5335 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A9-9410 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A9-9410 rivals Pentium N4200.