A9-9425 vs Athlon 64 X2 5200+

CPU

GPU

A9-9425

2 Cores2 Thrd15 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2016

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 X2 5200+

2 Cores2 Thrd89 WWMax: 2.7 GHz2006

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

A9-9425 vs Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Performance Spectrum

A9-9425

2 / 2

1,518

+0.9%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Athlon 64 X2 5200+

2 / 2

1,505

0.0%

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.

A9-9425 vs Athlon 64 X2 5200+ 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.

A9-9425 vs Athlon 64 X2 5200+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A9-9425

2016

Why buy it

✅Costs $270 less on MSRP ($150 MSRP vs $420 MSRP).
✅Delivers 182.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 10.1 vs 3.6 PassMark/$ ($150 MSRP vs $420 MSRP).
✅Draws 15W instead of 89W, a 74W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge), while Athlon 64 X2 5200+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Athlon 64 X2 5200+

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,505 vs 1,518).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.6 vs 10.1 PassMark/$ ($420 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
❌493.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 15W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A9-9425 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A9-9425 better than Athlon 64 X2 5200+?

Yes. A9-9425 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.9% 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, A9-9425 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.4% 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, A9-9425 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A9-9425 is the better buy right now. A9-9425 comes in $270 cheaper on MSRP at $150 MSRP versus $420 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 182.4% better value on MSRP (10.1 vs 3.6 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A9-9425 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 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A9-9425 vs Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Technical Specifications

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

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)	512K+51100%
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 166.6% 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 — 100% 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+167%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
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

At launch, the A9-9425 was priced at $150, while the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ came in at $420. On launch pricing ($150 vs $420), A9-9425 was $270 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A9-9425 delivers 10.1 pts/$ vs 3.6 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ — making the A9-9425 the 95.4% better value option.

Feature	A9-9425	Athlon 64 X2 5200+
MSRP	$150-64%	$420
Performance per Dollar	10.1+181%	3.6
Release Date	2016	2006

Search A9-9425 on Amazon

Search Athlon 64 X2 5200+ on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.