A9-9425 vs Core i3-380UM

A9-9425 vs Core i3-380UM Performance Spectrum

A9-9425

2 / 2

1,518

+1.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-380UM

2 / 4

1,502

0.0%

Pentium U5600

Celeron 1019Y

Core i3-370M

Pentium Dual Core T4500

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 Core i3-380UM 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 Core i3-380UM: 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

✅+112.1% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 15W instead of 512W, a 497W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $150 MSRP, while Core i3-380UM mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i3-380UM

2010

Why buy it

✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (199 vs 422).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (451 vs 724).
❌3313.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

So, is A9-9425 better than Core i3-380UM?

Yes. A9-9425 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 60.5% better Geekbench multi-core, 1.1% higher 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 2.8% 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 60.5% 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 the better buy right now. A9-9425 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $150 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (10.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A9-9425 vs Core i3-380UM 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.

Core i3-380UM

The Core i3-380UM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 October 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.33 GHz, with boost up to 0.03 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,502 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The A9-9425 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-380UM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the A9-9425 versus 0.03 GHz on the Core i3-380UM — a 196.8% clock advantage for the A9-9425 (base: 3.1 GHz vs 1.33 GHz). The A9-9425 uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i3-380UM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A9-9425 scores 1,518 against the Core i3-380UM's 1,502 — a 1.1% lead for the A9-9425. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 422 vs 199, a 71.8% lead for the A9-9425 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 724 vs 451 (46.5% advantage for the A9-9425). L3 cache: 0 kB on the A9-9425 vs 3 MB on the Core i3-380UM.

Feature	A9-9425	Core i3-380UM
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+12233%	0.03 GHz
Base Clock	3.1 GHz+133%	1.33 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+100%	512 kB
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,518+1%	1,502
Geekbench 6 Single	422+112%	199
Geekbench 6 Multi	724+61%	451

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A9-9425 uses the FT4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-380UM uses BGA1288 (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 Core i3-380UM — the A9-9425 supports 166.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (A9-9425) vs 2 (Core i3-380UM). PCIe lanes: 8 (A9-9425) vs 16 (Core i3-380UM) — the Core i3-380UM offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (A9-9425) and HM55,HM57,QM57 (Core i3-380UM).

Feature	A9-9425	Core i3-380UM
Socket	FT4	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133+167%	DDR3-800
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A9-9425) vs No (Core i3-380UM). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) (A9-9425) and Intel HD Graphics (Core i3-380UM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A9-9425 targets Budget Laptop, Core i3-380UM targets Budget. Direct competitor: A9-9425 rivals Pentium N4200; Core i3-380UM rivals Athlon Silver 3050U.