A9-9425 vs Athlon 64 X2 5200+
A9-9425
Athlon 64 X2 5200+
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The A9-9425 is positioned at rank 1078 and the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ is on rank 1082, so the A9-9425 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar A9-9425
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 X2 5200+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | A9-9425 | Athlon 64 X2 5200+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($30) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) / 28 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Windsor (2006−2007) / 90 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | A9-9425 | Athlon 64 X2 5200+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+98%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($30) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of A9-9425 and Athlon 64 X2 5200+
A9-9425
The A9-9425 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 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT4. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,518 points. Launch price was $69.
Athlon 64 X2 5200+
The Athlon 64 X2 5200+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,505 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
Both the A9-9425 and Athlon 64 X2 5200+ share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the A9-9425 versus 2.7 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ — a 31.3% clock advantage for the A9-9425. The A9-9425 uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ uses Windsor (2006−2007) (90 nm). In PassMark, the A9-9425 scores 1,518 against the Athlon 64 X2 5200+'s 1,505 — a 0.9% lead for the A9-9425. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | A9-9425 | Athlon 64 X2 5200+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3.7 GHz+37% | 2.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.1 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core)+100% | 512K |
| Process | 28 nm-69% | 90 nm |
| Architecture | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) | Windsor (2006−2007) |
| PassMark | 1,518 | 1,505 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 422 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 724 | — |
Memory & Platform
The A9-9425 uses the FT4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ uses AM2 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the A9-9425 versus DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ — the A9-9425 supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 X2 5200+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A9-9425) vs 2 (Athlon 64 X2 5200+). PCIe lanes: 8 (A9-9425) vs 0 (Athlon 64 X2 5200+) — the A9-9425 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (A9-9425) and AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 X2 5200+).
| Feature | A9-9425 | Athlon 64 X2 5200+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FT4 | AM2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+173% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2133+100% | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 16 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 8 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: AMD-V (A9-9425) / not specified (Athlon 64 X2 5200+). The A9-9425 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)), while the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A9-9425 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A9-9425 rivals Pentium N4200.
| Feature | A9-9425 | Athlon 64 X2 5200+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | — |
| Target Use | Budget Laptop | — |
Value Analysis
The A9-9425 launched at $150 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ debuted at $420. At current prices ($30 vs $15), the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ is $15 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the A9-9425 delivers 50.6 pts/$ vs 100.3 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ — making the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ the 65.9% better value option.
| Feature | A9-9425 | Athlon 64 X2 5200+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-64% | $420 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | $15-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.6 | 100.3+98% |
| Release Date | 2016 | 2006 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on A9-9425 and Athlon 64 X2 5200+
