AMD A9-9400 SoC vs Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (105W)
Comparative analysis of AMD A9-9400 SoC and Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (105W) processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization, Security & Reliability. Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark - Single thread mark, PassMark - CPU mark, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench 4 - Single Core, Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD A9-9400 SoC
- CPU is newer: launch date 9 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 10.5x lower typical power consumption: 10 Watt vs 105 Watt
- 5.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 2.759 vs 0.522
- 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 49.738 vs 24.255
- 15.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 11.848 vs 0.748
- 5.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 21.079 vs 3.829
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | May 2016 vs January 2007 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt vs 105 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.759 vs 0.522 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 49.738 vs 24.255 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 11.848 vs 0.748 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 21.079 vs 3.829 |
Reasons to consider the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (105W)
- 2 more cores, run more applications at once: 4 vs 2
- 4x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
| Number of cores | 4 vs 2 |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB vs 1024 KB (per core) |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: AMD A9-9400 SoC
CPU 2: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (105W)
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
| Name | AMD A9-9400 SoC | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (105W) |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 1199 | |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 1332 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.759 | 0.522 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 49.738 | 24.255 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 11.848 | 0.748 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 21.079 | 3.829 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 894 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1799 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 5100 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 894 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1799 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 5100 | |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 330 | |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1019 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score | 0 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.138 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD A9-9400 SoC | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (105W) | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture codename | Stoney Ridge | Kentsfield |
| Launch date | May 2016 | January 2007 |
| Place in performance rating | 1542 | 3288 |
| Vertical segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Processor Number | Q6600 | |
| Series | Legacy Intel® Core™ Processors | |
| Status | Discontinued | |
Performance |
||
| 64 bit support | ||
| Die size | 124 mm | 286 mm2 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 1024 KB (per core) | 8192 KB |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | 71 °C |
| Maximum frequency | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Number of cores | 2 | 4 |
| Transistor count | 1200 million | 582 million |
| Base frequency | 2.40 GHz | |
| Bus Speed | 1066 MHz FSB | |
| Maximum core temperature | B3=62.2°C; G0=71°C | |
| VID voltage range | 0.8500V-1.500V | |
Memory |
||
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Compatibility |
||
| Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Package Size | 37.5mm x 37.5mm | |
| Sockets supported | LGA775 | |
Advanced Technologies |
||
| Fused Multiply-Add (FMA) | ||
| Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
| FSB parity | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
| Thermal Monitoring | ||
Virtualization |
||
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
Security & Reliability |
||
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT) | ||
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare AMD A9-9400 SoC with others
AMDA9-9400 SoC vs
AMDPhenom II X4 830
AMDA9-9400 SoC vs
IntelCeleron G1850
AMDA9-9400 SoC vs
AMDRyzen 5 1500X
AMDA9-9400 SoC vs
IntelPentium Gold G5500
AMDA9-9400 SoC vs
IntelCore i3-3250T
AMDA9-9400 SoC vs
AMDA8-7500
