AMD A6-9400 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G and AMD A6-9400 are two very different processors that nonetheless land at nearly the same spot in the aggregate benchmark hierarchy. The Ryzen Embedded R1606G is a low-power mobile part built on the Zen architecture, while the A6-9400 is a desktop chip based on the older Excavator design. The data shows a fascinating split: the R1606G dominates in single-threaded performance and one multi-core test, while the A6-9400 strikes back decisively in the newer multi-core workload. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the R1606G at 797 and the A6-9400 at 794, a delta of just 0.3%. Both sit at the 21st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are entry-level parts by any measure. This page breaks down exactly where each chip wins, who should choose what, and what architectural choices drive those results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in the head-to-head comparison is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ryzen Embedded R1606G scores 888 against the A6-9400’s 326. That is a 172.4% advantage, meaning the R1606G more than doubles the A6-9400’s single-thread throughput in this workload. This is a massive gap and reflects the fundamental differences between the two designs. The R1606G’s Zen cores are far more efficient per clock, and it also boosts to 3.50 GHz, while the A6-9400 boosts slightly higher to 3.70 GHz but cannot overcome its Excavator architecture’s lower instructions-per-clock. For any application that relies heavily on single-thread performance, the R1606G is the clear winner.

The R1606G also takes the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, scoring 317 against the A6-9400’s 232, a 36.6% lead. This is notable because the A6-9400 has a higher base clock (3.40 GHz vs 2.60 GHz) and a higher boost clock, yet it still loses by a wide margin. The R1606G also has four threads thanks to SMT, while the A6-9400 only has two threads. That thread advantage, combined with the superior Zen core design, explains the result. In R15, the R1606G’s two cores and four threads are simply more effective than the A6-9400’s two cores and two threads.

However, the tables turn completely in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Here, the A6-9400 scores 2309 against the R1606G’s 1842, giving the A6-9400 a 20.2% victory. This is a surprising reversal. The R15 and R23 tests are both multi-core workloads, but R23 is newer and more demanding. The A6-9400’s higher clock speeds appear to matter more in this longer, heavier workload, allowing it to pull ahead despite its lack of SMT. The R1606G’s 25W TDP may also be a factor, as it may throttle under sustained load, while the A6-9400’s 65W TDP gives it more thermal headroom. The result is that the A6-9400 wins the most modern multi-core benchmark in this comparison, which is significant for users running current rendering or productivity applications.

There is no shared Cinebench R20 result between the two chips in the head-to-head data, but the A6-9400 has its own R20 scores: 969 multi-core and 136 single-core. These are not directly compared here, but they provide additional context for the A6-9400’s performance profile. The R1606G does not have R20 scores in the dataset, so we cannot make a direct comparison on that test.

Overall, the head-to-head results show a 2-to-1 win count in favor of the R1606G. That said, the margin of victory matters. The R1606G’s single-core win is enormous, and its R15 multi-core win is solid. The A6-9400’s R23 multi-core win is also substantial. This is not a case of one chip being universally faster; it is a case of each chip having a distinct performance personality.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for two different use cases. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G is the better choice for anyone prioritizing single-thread performance and lower power consumption. Its 172.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core is the single biggest differentiator between these two chips. It also wins the R15 multi-core test by 36.6%, showing it can handle older multi-threaded workloads effectively. With a 25W TDP versus the A6-9400’s 65W, the R1606G is far more efficient, making it suitable for compact or fanless systems where heat and power are concerns.

The AMD A6-9400 is the pick for users running modern multi-threaded applications that scale well with cores and clocks. Its 20.2% victory in Cinebench R23 multi-core is the most relevant result for current software. The A6-9400 also has a higher base clock (3.40 GHz) and boost clock (3.70 GHz), which helps in lightly threaded tasks that don’t benefit from SMT. It is a desktop socket AM4 part, which means it can be paired with standard desktop motherboards and coolers. However, its 65W TDP means it will require more robust cooling and power delivery.

If forced to choose one for general use, the Ryzen Embedded R1606G is the more well-rounded option. It wins two of the three head-to-head tests, and its single-core performance is so dominant that it will feel snappier in everyday tasks like web browsing, office work, and light content creation. The A6-9400’s R23 multi-core win is important, but it is a single test, and the R1606G’s wins are more numerous. The R1606G also has four threads versus two, which will help in any application that can use them. The A6-9400 is a specialized tool for specific multi-core workloads, while the R1606G is a more versatile performer.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G wins on:

• Single-thread performance: The 172.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core is the largest gap in this comparison. This translates to faster response times in applications that are not well-parallelized, such as older games, spreadsheet calculations, and scripting.
• Legacy multi-core workloads: The 36.6% win in Cinebench R15 multi-core shows that the R1606G handles older rendering and encoding tasks well, thanks to its SMT threads and superior core architecture.
• Power efficiency: At 25W TDP, the R1606G uses less than half the power of the A6-9400’s 65W TDP. This makes it suitable for embedded systems, mini PCs, and other power-constrained environments.
• Threading: With 4 threads versus 2, the R1606G can handle more concurrent tasks without significant slowdowns.

AMD A6-9400 wins on:

• Modern multi-core performance: The 20.2% victory in Cinebench R23 multi-core is the most important win for the A6-9400. This benchmark is more representative of contemporary rendering, video editing, and 3D modeling workloads.
• Clock speed: The A6-9400 has a higher base clock (3.40 GHz vs 2.60 GHz) and boost clock (3.70 GHz vs 3.50 GHz). This gives it an edge in short, bursty workloads and in tasks that are sensitive to raw clock frequency.
• Desktop platform: As a Socket AM4 part, the A6-9400 can be installed in standard desktop motherboards, offering more upgrade and configuration options than the R1606G’s FP5 socket.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G is dramatically faster. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 888 versus the A6-9400’s 326, a 172.4% advantage.

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-threaded workloads?

A: It depends on the test. The R1606G wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with a score of 317 versus 232, a 36.6% lead. However, the A6-9400 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 2309 versus 1842, a 20.2% advantage.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each CPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G has 2 cores and 4 threads. The AMD A6-9400 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The R1606G’s SMT technology gives it twice the thread count.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: They are nearly identical. The R1606G has an average benchmark score of 797, while the A6-9400 has an average score of 794. The R1606G is 0.3% ahead, and both are at the 21st percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which CPU has a lower TDP?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G has a TDP of 25W, while the AMD A6-9400 has a TDP of 65W. The R1606G is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: Both CPUs support dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. There is no difference in this specification.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed Banded Kestrel, using a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. It has 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. This L3 cache is a significant advantage, as it provides a fast pool of shared data for both cores. The chip has 3,500 million transistors on a die size of 148 mm². It uses the AMD Socket FP5 and is classified as a mobile part. The integrated graphics are Radeon Vega 3. It supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). It does not support ECC memory.

The AMD A6-9400 uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, on a much older 28 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. It has 2 cores and 2 threads, with no SMT support. The base clock is 3.40 GHz and the boost clock is 3.70 GHz. The cache is structured differently: 160 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of shared L2 cache. There is no L3 cache at all. This lack of L3 cache is a major architectural disadvantage, as it means the cores must rely on the slower L2 cache and main memory for shared data. The chip has 3,100 million transistors on a larger die size of 250 mm². It uses the AMD Socket AM4 and is a desktop part. The integrated graphics are Radeon R5. It also supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes and does not support ECC memory.

The process node difference is stark: 14 nm versus 28 nm. This explains the R1606G’s lower TDP (25W vs 65W) and smaller die size (148 mm² vs 250 mm²) despite having more transistors. The R1606G’s modern Zen cores are also significantly more efficient per clock, which is why it dominates in single-thread performance. The A6-9400’s Excavator cores are older and less efficient, but its higher clock speeds and larger thermal envelope allow it to win in the sustained multi-core workload of Cinebench R23. The presence of L3 cache on the R1606G and its absence on the A6-9400 is another key differentiator, as it improves memory latency and inter-core communication. These architectural choices explain the divergent benchmark results seen in this comparison.