AMD A8-9600 vs AMD Athlon X4 840 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the AMD Athlon X4 840 wins every recorded head-to-head comparison against the AMD A8-9600. Across five Cinebench tests, the Athlon X4 840 takes all five wins, while the A8-9600 records zero victories. The margins are consistent but modest, ranging from 1.3% to 1.8% depending on the workload.

For multi-threaded rendering tasks, the Athlon X4 840 maintains a steady advantage. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 285 against the A8-9600's 281, a 1.4% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, the gap is 1189 versus 1174, a 1.3% difference. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Athlon posts 2833 against 2797, again 1.3% ahead.

Single-thread performance tells a similar story. The Athlon X4 840 leads by 1.8% in Cinebench R20 single-core (168 versus 165) and by 1.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core (400 versus 394). These results indicate that the Athlon's advantage is not workload-specific; it holds across both single-threaded and multi-threaded benchmarks.

Where the A8-9600 might find its footing is in platform features rather than raw CPU benchmarks. It includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, which the Athlon X4 840 lacks entirely. For a system without a discrete GPU, the A8-9600 offers a functional display output and basic graphics capability. The Athlon X4 840, by contrast, requires a separate graphics card.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy. The Athlon X4 840 carries an average benchmark score of 975, while the A8-9600 sits at 962. Both processors land in the 26th percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier overall. The Athlon's edge, while consistent, is not transformative; it is a slightly faster CPU in every measured metric.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages within AMD's 28 nm era. The Athlon X4 840 uses the Steamroller architecture, part of the Kaveri generation, while the A8-9600 employs the Excavator architecture from the Bristol Ridge generation. Both are built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, but the transistor counts differ substantially.

The Athlon X4 840 integrates 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die. The A8-9600 packs 3,100 million transistors onto a 250 mm² die. That is a 689 million transistor difference, yet the A8-9600 does not convert that additional complexity into higher CPU benchmark scores. The extra transistors likely go toward the integrated Radeon R7 graphics and other platform features rather than raw compute throughput.

Cache configurations are another point of divergence. The Athlon X4 840 carries 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache. The A8-9600 has a larger L1 at 320 KB but a smaller L2 at 2 MB. Neither processor has any L3 cache. The Athlon's larger L2 cache may contribute to its slight performance edge in the recorded benchmarks.

Memory support differs as well. The Athlon X4 840 supports DDR3 memory over a dual-channel bus, delivering 34.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The A8-9600 supports DDR4 over the same dual-channel configuration, raising bandwidth to 38.4 GB/s. Despite the newer memory standard and higher theoretical bandwidth, the A8-9600 still trails in CPU-bound tests.

Socket compatibility is a significant practical difference. The Athlon X4 840 uses AMD Socket FM2+, while the A8-9600 uses AMD Socket AM4. These are not interchangeable platforms. The PCIe configuration also differs: the Athlon offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the A8-9600 provides Gen 3 with 8 lanes. For systems relying on multi-GPU setups or high-bandwidth expansion cards, the Athlon's wider PCIe allocation is an advantage.

The A8-9600 includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics; the Athlon X4 840 has no integrated graphics at all. The Athlon also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the A8-9600's multiplier is locked. Production status separates them further: the Athlon X4 840 is end-of-life, while the A8-9600 remains active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 840 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 285 versus 281 in R15, 1189 versus 1174 in R20, and 2833 versus 2797 in R23, a consistent 1.3% to 1.4% lead.

Q: Does the A8-9600 offer integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The A8-9600 includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics. The Athlon X4 840 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Athlon X4 840 supports DDR3 memory with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. The A8-9600 supports DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Are these processors overclockable?

A: The Athlon X4 840 has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking. The A8-9600 has a locked multiplier, so it does not offer the same overclocking flexibility.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Athlon X4 840 has an average benchmark score of 975, while the A8-9600 scores 962. Both processors sit in the 26th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which socket does each processor use?

A: The Athlon X4 840 uses AMD Socket FM2+. The A8-9600 uses AMD Socket AM4. They are not socket-compatible with each other.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Athlon X4 840 | AMD A8-9600 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Steamroller | Excavator |

| Codename | Kaveri | Bristol Ridge |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Transistors | 2,411 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 245 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 320 KB |

| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon R7 |

| Socket | AMD Socket FM2+ | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-08-11 | 2017-07-26 |

Both processors share the same core count (4), thread count (4), TDP (65 W), and lack of ECC memory support. Both are manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm process. The base clock is identical at 3.10 GHz, but the Athlon boosts higher at 3.80 GHz versus 3.40 GHz for the A8-9600.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Athlon X4 840 across all five Cinebench tests. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Athlon leads by 1.8%, scoring 168 against 165. This is the widest gap in either direction, though still a narrow margin in absolute terms.

In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Athlon posts 400 versus 394, a 1.5% advantage. This translates to a six-point difference on the score scale. While not a dramatic gap, it does indicate that the Steamroller architecture in the Athlon holds a modest IPC edge over the Excavator-based A8-9600 in single-threaded workloads.

Multi-core results follow the same pattern with slightly smaller margins. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 285 against 281, a 1.4% difference. Cinebench R20 multicore and R23 multicore both show 1.3% leads, with scores of 1189 versus 1174 and 2833 versus 2797 respectively.

The consistency of these results is notable. Every single benchmark, regardless of whether it stresses one core or all four, favors the Athlon X4 840 by roughly the same percentage. This suggests a fundamental per-clock efficiency advantage rather than a boost-clock or thermal artifact. The Athlon's higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 3.40 GHz certainly contributes, but the uniform margins across different workload types point to architectural efficiency as well.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional context. The Athlon X4 840 sits exactly tied with the Intel Core i3-4130, the Intel Core i3-4150T, and the AMD A10-7870K, all at an average score of 975 with a 0% delta. The Intel Core i5-5257U trails by 0.1%. For the A8-9600, its nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T and Intel Core i3-4360T, both at 963 with a 0.1% lead over the A8, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 trails by 0.4% and the Intel Celeron N5100 leads by 0.5%.

These rival comparisons place both CPUs in a crowded mid-low performance tier. The Athlon's 975 average score puts it on par with several Intel dual-core parts from the same era, while the A8-9600's 962 average sits just below that cluster. The delta between the two AMD processors, 13 points on the average score, is smaller than the deltas separating them from some of their nearest rivals.

In practical terms, the benchmark results indicate that the Athlon X4 840 is the stronger CPU for compute-heavy tasks. The A8-9600 counters with integrated graphics, DDR4 support, and an active production status, but the recorded performance data does not show any CPU benchmark where it takes the lead. For users who already have a discrete GPU, the Athlon X4 840 offers slightly better processing performance. For those building a system without a dedicated graphics card, the A8-9600's integrated Radeon R7 provides a functional path forward, albeit with lower CPU benchmark scores across the board.