Atom x7-E3950 vs PRO A6-9500

Atom x7-E3950 vs PRO A6-9500 Performance Spectrum

Atom x7-E3950

4 / 4

1,864

0.0%

1,873

+0.5%

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.

Atom x7-E3950 vs PRO A6-9500 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.

Atom x7-E3950 vs PRO A6-9500: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom x7-E3950

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 12W instead of 65W, a 53W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (6 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 505, while PRO A6-9500 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,864 vs 1,873).

PRO A6-9500

2016

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌441.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 12W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom x7-E3950 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is PRO A6-9500 better than Atom x7-E3950?

Yes. PRO A6-9500 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.5% 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, PRO A6-9500 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.3% 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, PRO A6-9500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

PRO A6-9500 still makes the most sense overall. PRO A6-9500 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

PRO A6-9500 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom x7-E3950 vs PRO A6-9500 Technical Specifications

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

Atom x7-E3950

The Atom x7-E3950 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 12 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,864 points. Launch price was $57.

PRO A6-9500

The PRO A6-9500 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 3 October 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 1,873 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom x7-E3950 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the PRO A6-9500 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom x7-E3950 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Atom x7-E3950 versus 3.8 GHz on the PRO A6-9500 — a 62.1% clock advantage for the PRO A6-9500 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Atom x7-E3950 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the PRO A6-9500 uses Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Atom x7-E3950 scores 1,864 against the PRO A6-9500's 1,873 — a 0.5% lead for the PRO A6-9500.

Feature	Atom x7-E3950	PRO A6-9500
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	3.8 GHz+90%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	3.5 GHz+119%
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	2 MB (total)+100%	1024 kB
Process	14 nm-50%	28 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
PassMark	1,864	1,873
Geekbench 6 Single	245	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom x7-E3950 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the PRO A6-9500 uses AM4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Atom x7-E3950	PRO A6-9500
Socket	FCBGA1296	AM4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	4	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	6	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Atom x7-E3950) / not specified (PRO A6-9500). The Atom x7-E3950 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 505), while the PRO A6-9500 requires a dedicated GPU.