A9-9425 vs Celeron G1620T

CPU

GPU

A9-9425

2 Cores2 Thrd15 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2016

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron G1620T

2 Cores2 Thrd35 WWMax: 2.4 GHz2013

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

A9-9425 vs Celeron G1620T Performance Spectrum

A9-9425

2 / 2

1,518

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron G1620T

2 / 2

1,532

+0.9%

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 Celeron G1620T 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 Celeron G1620T: 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

✅+12.8% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 15W instead of 35W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.1 vs 36.5 PassMark/$ ($150 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).

Celeron G1620T

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $108 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
✅Delivers 260.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 36.5 vs 10.1 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (374 vs 422).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (701 vs 724).
❌133.3% higher power demand at 35W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

So, is A9-9425 better than Celeron G1620T?

Yes. A9-9425 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 3.3% better Geekbench multi-core, 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 2.1% 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 3.3% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A9-9425 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A9-9425 comes in 257.1% more expensive on MSRP at $150 MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron G1620T only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2013 platform. Even with 260.4% better value on paper (36.5 vs 10.1 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1155.

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 2013) 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 Celeron G1620T 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.

Celeron G1620T

The Celeron G1620T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,532 points. Launch price was $42.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A9-9425 and Celeron G1620T share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the A9-9425 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron G1620T — a 42.6% clock advantage for the A9-9425 (base: 3.1 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The A9-9425 uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron G1620T uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A9-9425 scores 1,518 against the Celeron G1620T's 1,532 — a 0.9% lead for the Celeron G1620T. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 422 vs 374, a 12.1% lead for the A9-9425 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 724 vs 701 (3.2% advantage for the A9-9425). L3 cache: 0 kB on the A9-9425 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620T.

Feature	A9-9425	Celeron G1620T
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+54%	2.4 GHz
Base Clock	3.1 GHz+29%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	28 nm	22 nm-21%
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,518	1,532
Geekbench 6 Single	422+13%	374
Geekbench 6 Multi	724+3%	701

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A9-9425 uses the FT4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron G1620T uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the A9-9425 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron G1620T — the A9-9425 supports 60% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G1620T supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A9-9425) vs 2 (Celeron G1620T). PCIe lanes: 8 (A9-9425) vs 16 (Celeron G1620T) — the Celeron G1620T offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (A9-9425) and H61,B75,H77,Z77 (Celeron G1620T).

Feature	A9-9425	Celeron G1620T
Socket	FT4	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133+60%	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A9-9425) vs VT-x (Celeron G1620T). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) (A9-9425) and HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron G1620T) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A9-9425 targets Budget Laptop, Celeron G1620T targets Budget. Direct competitor: A9-9425 rivals Pentium N4200; Celeron G1620T rivals Pentium G2020T.

Feature	A9-9425	Celeron G1620T
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)	HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x
Target Use	Budget Laptop	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the A9-9425 was priced at $150, while the Celeron G1620T came in at $42. On launch pricing ($150 vs $42), Celeron G1620T was $108 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A9-9425 delivers 10.1 pts/$ vs 36.5 pts/$ for the Celeron G1620T — making the Celeron G1620T the 113.1% better value option.

Feature	A9-9425	Celeron G1620T
MSRP	$150	$42-72%
Performance per Dollar	10.1	36.5+261%
Release Date	2016	2013

Search A9-9425 on Amazon

Search Celeron G1620T 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.