AMD A6-9400 vs AMD Athlon X4 850 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, if narrow, advantage for the AMD Athlon X4 850 across every Cinebench workload in the comparison. The largest single margin appears in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the Athlon X4 850 scores 138 against the A6-9400's 136, a delta of 1.5%. That is a slim lead, but it establishes a pattern that repeats across all five recorded benchmarks.

In multi-core workloads, the Athlon X4 850 widens its lead slightly. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows 235 versus 232, a 1.3% advantage. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test records 983 versus 969, a 1.4% difference, and the Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows 2342 versus 2309, also a 1.4% margin. The single-core results follow the same trend: Cinebench R23 single-core scores 330 against 326, a 1.2% delta. Across the board, the Athlon X4 850 wins five out of five head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 1.2% to 1.5%.

The practical interpretation of these numbers is that the Athlon X4 850 is the faster processor in every recorded workload, but the margin is small enough that it would be difficult to notice in everyday use without a stopwatch. A 1.4% difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core translates to roughly 33 points, which is within the noise range of many real-world applications. Still, the consistency matters: the Athlon wins every single test, not just one or two.

Looking at the broader database context, the Athlon X4 850 sits at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 806. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon X5482 at 805 (a 0.1% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U also at 805 (0.1% ahead of the Athlon). The Intel Core i7-870S scores 809, putting it 0.3% ahead of the Athlon, and the AMD A10-6800K scores 809 as well, 0.4% ahead. This places the Athlon X4 850 in a crowded field of mid-2010s desktop and mobile parts where performance differences are measured in fractions of a percent.

The A6-9400 sits at the 21st percentile, with an average benchmark score of 794. Its nearest rivals tell a similar story: the AMD A10-5800B matches it exactly at 794, the AMD A10-7850K is 0.3% ahead at 796, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G is 0.3% ahead at 797, and the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 trails by 0.5% at 790. The 12-point gap between the two processors in this comparison (806 versus 794) is small but consistent with the head-to-head deltas.

The data does not show any workload where the A6-9400 pulls ahead. Even in single-core tests, where the A6-9400's higher base clock of 3.40 GHz might suggest an advantage, the Athlon X4 850's boost clock of 3.90 GHz and its four physical cores appear to overcome the A6's base frequency edge. The A6 does reach 3.70 GHz on boost, but the recorded scores still favor the Athlon.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear, though narrow, winner: the AMD Athlon X4 850. It wins every recorded Cinebench workload, both single-core and multi-core, and its average benchmark score of 806 exceeds the A6-9400's 794. The margins are small, ranging from 1.2% to 1.5%, but they are uniform across all five tests. There is no recorded scenario where the A6-9400 outperforms the Athlon X4 850 in the database.

Who should pick the Athlon X4 850? Anyone who prioritizes raw CPU compute performance in Cinebench-style workloads. The four cores and four threads, combined with the higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz, give it a measurable edge. The Athlon also has an unlocked multiplier, which means it can be overclocked, and it supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, which is double the A6's 8 lanes. These are meaningful differences for users building a desktop system with a discrete GPU or other PCIe expansion cards.

Who should pick the A6-9400? The data does not support picking it for raw CPU performance, but it does offer other advantages that are not captured in the Cinebench scores. The A6-9400 includes integrated Radeon R5 graphics, which the Athlon X4 850 lacks entirely. It also uses the AMD Socket AM4 platform and supports DDR4 memory, whereas the Athlon requires DDR3 on the older FM2+ socket. The A6-9400 has a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz, and it is marked as Active in production status, while the Athlon is End-of-life. For a user who needs a simple system without a discrete GPU, or who wants a current platform with DDR4 support, the A6-9400 is the more sensible choice despite losing every CPU benchmark.

The verdict from the recorded data: the Athlon X4 850 is the faster CPU, but the A6-9400 is the more versatile platform. The choice depends entirely on whether the user values peak compute performance or integrated functionality and platform longevity.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 850 has an average benchmark score of 806, while the AMD A6-9400 scores 794. The Athlon sits at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, and the A6 sits at the 21st percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Athlon X4 850 in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Athlon X4 850 scores 2342 versus the A6-9400's 2309, a 1.4% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 983 versus 969, also a 1.4% difference.

Q: Does the A6-9400 win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Athlon X4 850 winning all five recorded tests: Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core.

Q: What is the memory support difference between the two?

A: The Athlon X4 850 supports DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The A6-9400 supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The A6-9400 includes Radeon R5 integrated graphics, while the Athlon X4 850 has no integrated graphics listed in the database. The Athlon requires a discrete GPU.

Q: Are both processors on the same socket?

A: No. The Athlon X4 850 uses AMD Socket FM2+, while the A6-9400 uses AMD Socket AM4. They are not platform-compatible.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Athlon X4 850 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the A6-9400 has 2 cores and 2 threads. Base clocks differ: the Athlon runs at 3.20 GHz, the A6 at 3.40 GHz. Boost clocks also differ: the Athlon reaches 3.90 GHz, the A6 reaches 3.70 GHz. Both have a TDP of 65 watts.

The sockets are incompatible. The Athlon uses AMD Socket FM2+, the A6 uses AMD Socket AM4. Memory support diverges: the Athlon uses DDR3 with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, the A6 uses DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe lane counts differ as well: the Athlon provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the A6 provides Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

The Athlon X4 850 has an unlocked multiplier, while the A6-9400 does not. The Athlon is marked as End-of-life in production status, while the A6 is Active. The A6 has a recorded release date of March 15, 2019, while the Athlon has no release date listed. The A6 includes Radeon R5 integrated graphics; the Athlon has none. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Athlon X4 850 is built on the Steamroller architecture with the codename Godaveri. The A6-9400 uses the Excavator architecture with the codename Bristol Ridge. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries, but the transistor counts differ substantially: the Athlon contains 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, while the A6 contains 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The A6 packs more transistors into a slightly larger die, which reflects the integrated Radeon R5 graphics block.

Cache configurations are markedly different. The Athlon X4 850 has 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache. The A6-9400 has 160 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of shared L2 cache. Neither processor has L3 cache or 3D V-Cache. The A6's smaller cache footprint is likely a consequence of its dual-core design and the integration of graphics on the same die.

The memory controllers differ as well. The Athlon supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. The A6 supports DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, giving it a higher theoretical memory ceiling despite its lower core count.

The PCIe implementation also diverges. The Athlon offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the A6 offers Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Athlon's doubled lane count gives it an advantage for multi-GPU or expansion-heavy configurations, though the A6's integrated graphics mean it may not need as many lanes for a basic system.

The A6-9400 is part of the Bristol Ridge generation, which is a later design than the Godaveri-based Athlon. The A6's Excavator architecture is a refinement of the Steamroller core used in the Athlon, and its higher transistor count and DDR4 support reflect that generational step. However, the benchmark data shows that the Athlon's extra two cores outweigh the A6's architectural refinements in compute-heavy Cinebench workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Athlon X4 850 wins in every recorded CPU benchmark. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-core workloads, where the four-core design delivers a 1.4% lead in both Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core tests. It also wins the single-core tests, with a 1.5% edge in Cinebench R20 single-core and a 1.2% edge in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Athlon's higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz and its unlocked multiplier give it additional headroom for users willing to overclock. Its 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes make it the better choice for systems with multiple expansion cards or a high-end discrete GPU.

The A6-9400 wins outside the CPU benchmark suite. It has integrated Radeon R5 graphics, which means it can run a complete desktop system without a separate graphics card. It supports DDR4 memory with a higher bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, and it uses the AMD Socket AM4 platform, which is more current than the FM2+ socket used by the Athlon. The A6 also has a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz, which may help in lightly threaded tasks that do not boost. Its production status is Active, while the Athlon is End-of-life, suggesting the A6 is still a supported platform choice.

The use-case split is straightforward: the Athlon X4 850 is the pick for users who want maximum CPU compute performance and are willing to pair it with a discrete GPU. The A6-9400 is the pick for users who want a complete, integrated desktop solution on a modern platform with DDR4 memory, even if it means accepting a measurable but modest CPU performance deficit. The data does not show any scenario where the A6 beats the Athlon in raw compute, but it does show a clear win in platform features and integrated graphics.