A9-9425 vs Atom 330

A9-9425 vs Atom 330 Performance Spectrum

A9-9425

2 / 2

1,518

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom 330

2 / 4

1,530

+0.8%

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 Atom 330 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 Atom 330: 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

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge), while Atom 330 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,518 vs 1,530).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.1 vs 35.6 PassMark/$ ($150 MSRP vs $43 MSRP).
❌87.5% higher power demand at 15W vs 8W.

Atom 330

2008

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $107 less on MSRP ($43 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
✅Delivers 251.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 35.6 vs 10.1 PassMark/$ ($43 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
✅Draws 8W instead of 15W, a 7W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while A9-9425 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom 330 better than A9-9425?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A9-9425 is ahead with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom 330 pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom 330 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom 330 is the better buy right now. Atom 330 comes in $107 cheaper on MSRP at $43 MSRP versus $150 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark. The compromise is that A9-9425 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 251.6% better value on MSRP (35.6 vs 10.1 PassMark/$), 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 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A9-9425 vs Atom 330 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.

Atom 330

The Atom 330 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 April 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Diamondville (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 0.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PBGA437. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,530 points. Launch price was $43.

⚡

Processing Power

The A9-9425 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Atom 330's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the A9-9425 versus 0.1 GHz on the Atom 330 — a 189.5% clock advantage for the A9-9425 (base: 3.1 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The A9-9425 uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Atom 330 uses Diamondville (2008−2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A9-9425 scores 1,518 against the Atom 330's 1,530 — a 0.8% lead for the Atom 330. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A9-9425	Atom 330
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+3600%	0.1 GHz
Base Clock	3.1 GHz+94%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB
Process	28 nm-38%	45 nm
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Diamondville (2008−2009)
PassMark	1,518	1,530
Geekbench 6 Single	422	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	724	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A9-9425 uses the FT4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Atom 330 uses PBGA437 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the A9-9425 versus DDR2-533 on the Atom 330 — the A9-9425 supports 300.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A9-9425 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A9-9425) vs 0 (Atom 330) — the A9-9425 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (A9-9425) and Intel BGA437 (Atom 330).

Feature	A9-9425	Atom 330
Socket	FT4	PBGA437
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133+300%	DDR2-533
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A9-9425) / not specified (Atom 330). The A9-9425 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)), while the Atom 330 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A9-9425 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A9-9425 rivals Pentium N4200.

Feature	A9-9425	Atom 330
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 Atom 330 came in at $43. On launch pricing ($150 vs $43), Atom 330 was $107 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A9-9425 delivers 10.1 pts/$ vs 35.6 pts/$ for the Atom 330 — making the Atom 330 the 111.4% better value option.

Feature	A9-9425	Atom 330
MSRP	$150	$43-71%
Performance per Dollar	10.1	35.6+252%
Release Date	2016	2008

Search A9-9425 on Amazon

Search Atom 330 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.