AMD PRO A6-9500

The AMD PRO A6-9500 is a desktop processor built on the Excavator architecture, code-named Bristol Ridge. It presents a distinct dual-core, dual-thread configuration with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, targeting entry-level computing with an integrated Radeon R5 GPU. The data indicates a processor positioned at the very low end of the performance spectrum, with an average benchmark score of 521 and a percentile rank of just 9, meaning it outperforms only a small fraction of all CPUs tracked.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The split between single-thread and multi-thread performance is stark and revealing. In Cinebench R20, the processor scores 89 points in the single-core test and 636 points in the multi-core test. This multi-core result is roughly 7.1 times higher than the single-core score, which is expected for a dual-core, dual-thread part where both threads are fully engaged. However, the absolute numbers are what matter: the single-core score of 89 is exceptionally low, indicating that each individual core is not particularly strong at executing instructions.

The Cinebench R23 results show a similar pattern, with a single-core score of 214 and a multi-core score of 1516. The multi-core score is about 7.1 times the single-core score, again confirming that scaling from one core to two cores is nearly linear, but the base performance per core is minimal. For real workloads, this means that any application relying heavily on a single thread—such as older games, many office productivity tasks, or lightly-threaded legacy software—will struggle. The processor's low single-thread throughput will be a bottleneck. Conversely, workloads that can utilize both cores, like basic video encoding or multitasking with simple applications, will see a more substantial—though still modest—level of performance. The data suggests a processor designed primarily for basic tasks where multi-core scaling is less critical than raw per-core efficiency, which is notably lacking here.

How It Compares

The nearest rivals for this processor are all older or similarly low-powered parts, and the deltas between them are minimal. The data shows four competitors with average scores nearly identical to the PRO A6-9500’s own 521. The Intel Celeron G1840 sits at an average score of 520, a negligible 0.1% difference. The AMD Phenom II X4 910, a much older quad-core design, scores 519, which is 0.4% behind. The AMD Athlon II X4 600e scores 525, putting it 0.7% ahead. Finally, the Intel Xeon L5408 scores 517, which is 0.7% behind. These are all effectively statistical ties, indicating that the PRO A6-9500 occupies the same performance class as these older parts, despite being a newer design.

Benchmark Performance

Benchmark results indicate that the PRO A6-9500 is locked in a tight grouping with its nearest rivals, with no significant performance advantage. The average benchmark score of 521 places it virtually at parity with the Intel Celeron G1840, which trails by only 0.1%. In practical terms, this means the two processors are interchangeable in performance for most tasks. The comparison to the AMD Phenom II X4 910 is more interesting, as that part has four cores but is from an older architecture. The PRO A6-9500 is 0.4% faster on average, suggesting that its newer architecture and higher clock speeds compensate for the Phenom's two additional cores in the average benchmark suite.

The data shows a slightly larger gap when compared to the AMD Athlon II X4 600e, which leads by 0.7%. This is a marginal difference, but it implies that this particular rival has a slight edge in the aggregate of all benchmark tests. Against the Intel Xeon L5408, the PRO A6-9500 is 0.7% ahead, which is similarly negligible. The conclusion from these deltas is that there is no meaningful performance separation between any of these five processors. The PRO A6-9500 is not faster or slower in any practical sense; it is simply another member of the same low-performance tier. The 9th percentile ranking reinforces this, placing it among the slowest processors in the current database.

FAQ

Q: What is the processor's average benchmark score compared to its nearest rival?

A: The average benchmark score is 521, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Celeron G1840's score of 520.

Q: How does the multi-core performance in Cinebench R23 compare to the single-core performance?

A: The multi-core score is 1516, which is approximately 7.1 times higher than the single-core score of 214.

Q: Which rival has a higher average benchmark score than the AMD PRO A6-9500?

A: The AMD Athlon II X4 600e has a higher average score of 525, which is 0.7% above the PRO A6-9500's score.

Q: Does the processor support Error Correction Code (ECC) memory?

A: No, the data indicates that ECC memory is not supported.

Q: What is the transistor count for this processor?

A: The processor contains 3,100 million transistors on a die size of 250 mm².

Q: What is the production status of the AMD PRO A6-9500?

A: The production status is listed as "Active," meaning it is currently being produced.

Power and Thermals

The processor has a thermal design power (TDP) of 65 watts. This TDP class is characteristic of a mainstream desktop processor. It implies that a standard, capable air cooler is sufficient for managing heat output under typical workloads. The 28 nm process node from GlobalFoundries is a mature technology, and the 65-watt envelope means the cooling requirements are not demanding. Users can expect that a basic, stock-style cooler or a low-profile aftermarket cooler will be adequate. The data does not provide specific thermal figures, but the TDP suggests that this is not a high-heat part and should be easy to cool in a standard desktop chassis.

Platform and Compatibility

This processor is designed for the AMD Socket AM4 platform, which is a significant point of compatibility. It supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a maximum memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, but does not support ECC memory. The memory support is limited to DDR4, which aligns with the AM4 platform's ecosystem. The processor provides 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU itself, which is a limited number compared to higher-tier parts. This affects expansion options, potentially limiting the bandwidth for discrete GPUs or NVMe drives. The integrated graphics are the Radeon R5, which provides a baseline display output capability, removing the need for a dedicated graphics card for basic use. The upgrade path on the AM4 socket is a key consideration; the data shows this is an older Bristol Ridge part, but the socket supports many newer generations of processors. This means a user could potentially upgrade to a much more powerful CPU without changing the motherboard, depending on the specific board's BIOS support. The multiplier is locked, so overclocking is not supported.

Who Should Consider It

Based on the benchmark data, this processor is suited for a very narrow set of workloads. The low single-core scores in Cinebench R20 (89) and R23 (214) indicate it is not a viable option for modern gaming, where per-core performance is paramount. The multi-core scores of 636 in Cinebench R20 and 1516 in Cinebench R23 are also too low for any serious content creation, such as video editing or 3D rendering. These tasks would take an extremely long time to complete. The processor is more appropriate for basic office applications, web browsing, and light productivity tasks where the workload is not demanding. Its integrated Radeon R5 graphics make it a potential candidate for a low-cost, basic home or office PC that does not require a discrete GPU. The 9th percentile ranking serves as a clear warning that this is near the bottom of the performance pool. It is a processor for users with the most fundamental computing needs, where cost and basic functionality are the primary concerns, and performance expectations are minimal. The data does not support any recommendation for users who require responsive performance in modern applications.