AMD Athlon X4 840 vs AMD PRO A8-9600 Comparison
AMD Athlon X4 840
PRO A8-9600
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Athlon X4 840 vs AMD PRO A8-9600
The AMD Athlon X4 840 and AMD PRO A8-9600 are two quad-core desktop processors from AMD that, on paper, appear nearly identical. Both feature four cores, four threads, a 65W TDP, and a 3.10 GHz base clock. However, the benchmark data reveals a consistent, though narrow, edge for the older Athlon X4 840 across every single test. The Athlon X4 840 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, while the PRO A8-9600 counters with a newer socket, DDR4 memory support, and integrated graphics. This is a classic case of a CPU that wins on raw compute versus one that offers a more complete platform package.
Where Each One Wins
The performance split is unambiguous: the AMD Athlon X4 840 is the faster processor in every measured workload. In the head-to-head benchmarks, the Athlon X4 840 takes all five wins, with deltas ranging from 0.4% to 0.6%. This is a sweep, but the margins are incredibly tight. The largest advantage is in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the Athlon X4 840 scores 168 against the PRO A8-9600’s 167, a 0.6% lead. In multi-core tests, the delta is consistent at 0.4% to 0.5%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Athlon scores 2833 versus 2820, a 0.5% advantage.
The PRO A8-9600’s wins are not in raw compute but in platform features. It is the only one of the two with an integrated GPU, specifically the Radeon R7. This means a system built around the PRO A8-9600 does not require a discrete graphics card for basic display output, making it the more practical choice for a budget office or media PC. Additionally, the PRO A8-9600 uses the AMD Socket AM4 platform with DDR4 memory support, while the Athlon X4 840 is tied to the older AMD Socket FM2+ and DDR3. The PRO A8-9600 also has a higher memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s compared to the Athlon’s 34.1 GB/s.
For pure processing tasks, such as video encoding or 3D rendering in Cinebench, the Athlon X4 840 is the winner. For a system that needs to run without a dedicated GPU or use modern DDR4 RAM, the PRO A8-9600 is the appropriate choice. The data shows the Athlon is a slightly better computational part, while the PRO A8-9600 is a more versatile platform solution.
Architecture Differences
Despite similar performance, the two CPUs come from different architectural families. The AMD Athlon X4 840 is based on the Steamroller architecture, with the codename Kaveri. It is built on a 28 nm process node at GlobalFoundries and houses 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die. Its cache configuration includes 256 KB of L1 cache and a larger 4 MB of L2 cache. It supports dual-channel DDR3 memory and has a PCIe Gen 3 interface with 16 lanes available for the CPU. The Athlon X4 840 has an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking, and is classified as end-of-life. It was released in August 2014.
In contrast, the AMD PRO A8-9600 uses the newer Excavator architecture, under the codename Bristol Ridge. It is also built on a 28 nm process node at GlobalFoundries, but it packs more transistors: 3,100 million on a slightly larger 250 mm² die. Its cache is split differently, with 320 KB of L1 cache and a smaller 2 MB of L2 cache. The memory support is a significant upgrade, moving to dual-channel DDR4, which provides the higher 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The PCIe interface is Gen 3, but with only 8 lanes for the CPU. It features integrated Radeon R7 graphics, a capability the Athlon X4 840 lacks entirely. The PRO A8-9600 has a locked multiplier, meaning it cannot be overclocked. It is still in active production and was released in October 2016.
The architectural differences explain the benchmark results. The Athlon X4 840’s larger 4 MB L2 cache likely helps it edge out the PRO A8-9600 in compute-heavy Cinebench tests, despite the latter’s more modern Excavator cores. The PRO A8-9600’s smaller L2 cache is a trade-off for including the integrated GPU and more transistors on the die. The boost clocks also differ: the Athlon X4 840 boosts to 3.80 GHz, while the PRO A8-9600 tops out at 3.40 GHz. This 0.40 GHz boost advantage is a clear factor in the Athlon’s consistent, albeit small, performance lead.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Cinebench suite provides a clear picture of the performance gap. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Athlon X4 840 scores 285 against the PRO A8-9600’s 284, a 0.4% difference. This pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Athlon scores 1189 versus 1184, again a 0.4% lead. The single-core tests show a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Athlon X4 840 scores 168 compared to 167 for the PRO A8-9600, a 0.6% advantage. The Cinebench R23 results follow the same trend: the Athlon wins multi-core with 2833 over 2820 (0.5% delta) and single-core with 400 over 398 (0.5% delta).
The average benchmark scores reflect this narrow margin. The Athlon X4 840 has an average benchmark score of 975, while the PRO A8-9600 sits at 971. Both processors occupy the 26th percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier. The nearest rivals for the Athlon X4 840 include the Intel Core i3-4130, Intel Core i3-4150T, and AMD A10-7870K, all with an average score of 975 and a 0% delta, as well as the Intel Core i5-5257U with a score of 976 and a -0.1% delta. The PRO A8-9600’s nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-2400S (score 968, delta 0.3%) and AMD Ryzen 7 3700U (score 968, delta 0.4%), while it trails the AMD A10-7870K and Intel Core i3-4130 by 0.4%.
The biggest win for the Athlon X4 840 is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the 0.6% delta is the largest of any test. Even this is a marginal gain, translating to a single point on the scoreboard. The multi-core wins, while consistent, are equally small. The data suggests that in any real-world application, the performance difference between these two chips would be imperceptible. The Athlon X4 840 is the faster part, but only by the slimmest of margins.
The Verdict
The choice between these two processors is not about performance, as the data shows they are functionally equivalent in compute tasks. The AMD Athlon X4 840 is the winner for users who prioritize raw CPU performance and have no need for integrated graphics. Its 4 MB L2 cache and higher 3.80 GHz boost clock give it a consistent edge in all Cinebench tests. It also offers an unlocked multiplier, a feature absent from the PRO A8-9600, allowing for overclocking potential. This makes it the better choice for a dedicated CPU-focused build where a discrete graphics card is already planned.
The AMD PRO A8-9600 is the winner for users building a complete system on a modern platform. Its support for DDR4 memory and the AMD Socket AM4 interface makes it a more future-proof option. The inclusion of integrated Radeon R7 graphics eliminates the need for a separate GPU, which is ideal for basic office work, media consumption, or a home theater PC. The PRO A8-9600 is also an active product, while the Athlon X4 840 is end-of-life, meaning the PRO A8-9600 is likely easier to source new. Its smaller 2 MB L2 cache and lower 3.40 GHz boost clock result in slightly lower benchmark scores, but the platform benefits may outweigh the negligible performance deficit for many users.
In summary, pick the Athlon X4 840 if you want the fastest possible compute performance from these two and are building on the older FM2+ platform with DDR3. Pick the PRO A8-9600 if you want a modern AM4 motherboard, DDR4 memory, and integrated graphics, and you are willing to trade a 0.4% to 0.6% performance delta for those features. The benchmark data is clear: the Athlon is faster, but the PRO A8-9600 is the more versatile package.
FAQ
Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core performance?
A: The AMD Athlon X4 840 wins all multi-core tests. It scores 285 versus 284 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1189 versus 1184 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 2833 versus 2820 in Cinebench R23 multi-core.
Q: Does the AMD PRO A8-9600 have integrated graphics?
A: Yes, the AMD PRO A8-9600 features integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The AMD 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 AMD Athlon X4 840 supports dual-channel DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The AMD PRO A8-9600 supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a higher bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.
Q: Are these CPUs overclockable?
A: Yes, the AMD Athlon X4 840 has an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking. The AMD PRO A8-9600 has a locked multiplier and does not support overclocking.
Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?
A: The Athlon X4 840 matches the Intel Core i3-4130 and AMD A10-7870K with a 0% delta in average score, while trailing the Intel Core i5-5257U by 0.1%. The PRO A8-9600 is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-2400S and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U, but 0.4% behind the AMD A10-7870K and Intel Core i3-4130.
Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?
A: The AMD Athlon X4 840 has a higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz, compared to the 3.40 GHz boost clock of the AMD PRO A8-9600. Both have the same 3.10 GHz base clock.