A9-9425 vs Atom N2600

A9-9425 vs Atom N2600 Performance Spectrum

A9-9425

2 / 2

1,518

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom N2600

2 / 4

1,528

+0.7%

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 N2600 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 N2600: 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 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,518 vs 1,528).
❌Launch MSRP is still $150 MSRP, while Atom N2600 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌275% higher power demand at 15W vs 4W.

Atom N2600

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 4W instead of 15W, a 11W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is A9-9425 better than Atom N2600?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A9-9425 is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom N2600 pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom N2600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 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 at an unclear MSRP at $150 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Atom N2600 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.7% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (10.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A9-9425 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A9-9425 vs Atom N2600 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 N2600

The Atom N2600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Cedarview-M (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 3.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,528 points. Launch price was $47.

⚡

Processing Power

The A9-9425 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Atom N2600's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the A9-9425 versus 1.6 GHz on the Atom N2600 — a 79.2% 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 N2600 uses Cedarview-M (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A9-9425 scores 1,518 against the Atom N2600's 1,528 — a 0.7% lead for the Atom N2600. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A9-9425	Atom N2600
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+131%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.1 GHz+94%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Cedarview-M (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,518	1,528
Geekbench 6 Single	422	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	724	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A9-9425 uses the FT4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Atom N2600 uses FCBGA559 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the A9-9425 versus DDR3-800 on the Atom N2600 — the A9-9425 supports 166.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A9-9425 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A9-9425) vs 4 (Atom N2600) — the A9-9425 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (A9-9425) and Intel NM10 (Atom N2600).

Feature	A9-9425	Atom N2600
Socket	FT4	FCBGA559
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133+167%	DDR3-800
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+300%	2 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8+100%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A9-9425) / not specified (Atom N2600). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) (A9-9425) and Intel GMA 3600 (Atom N2600) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A9-9425 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A9-9425 rivals Pentium N4200.