Pixel 9a benchmarks reveal how close budget and premium Pixels have become

Google’s custom smartphone chips might not claim the performance crown, but one major benefit upside is that it can afford to use its latest Tensor G4 processor across its flagship Pixel 9 series and the new, affordable Pixel 9a. Of course, the budget model isn’t exactly alike; Google pairs it with just 8GB RAM, the packaging wrapping up the G4 appears to be cheaper, and the chip is paired with an older and less efficient modem.

Still, the core parts of the Tensor G4 processor that crunches through apps, gaming, and image processor tasks remain fundamentally unchanged across Google’s latest phones. $499 for essentially the same performance as the $1,099 Pro XL sounds too good to be true, so is it? I benchmarked the Pixel 9a, 9, and 9 Pro XL to find out.

Pixel 9a vs Pixel 9 CPU benchmark

Google’s Tensor G4 packs the same Arm Cortex-X4 @ 3.1GHz, A720 @ 2.6GHz, and A520 @ 1.92GHz CPU cores, no matter which Pixel 9 phone you pick up. However, according to GeekBench 6, the three series variants’ CPU performance doesn’t appear to be quite identical.

The Pixel 9a comes out about 11% slower in single-core and 7% behind in multi-core CPU tests compared to the Pixel 9 Pro and 9 Pro XL. That’s not a big enough gap to make day-to-day tasks feel any different, but it means that the Pro models will be a fraction more responsive to short-burst tasks like opening an app or heavy multi-core scenarios like gaming.

We have already seen a similar performance discrepancy between the Pro and base flagship models. Comparing the 9a to the similarly sized Pixel 9, there’s a much smaller 3% single- and multi-core performance gap. This is very close to the margin of error and will be impossible to distinguish in the real world, meaning apps and tasks will perform essentially identically whether you’re spending $499 or $799 on a Pixel handset.

Pixel 9a graphics benchmark

Again, when it comes to graphics and gaming, the Tensor G4 has the same Arm Mali-G725 GPU @ 940MHz inside all of the phones. Unlike Apple’s iPhone 16e, there are no disabled GPU cores or downclocks.

As you can see in the graph below, all three handsets perform virtually identically in the first few runs. In fact, the Pixel 9a seems to have a 3% lead over the Pro XL, but this is pretty close to the margin of error and could be accounted for by different software versions. Instead, cooling and temperature have a more significant influence on gaming performance.

Over the course of 20 sequential benchmark runs, the Pixel 9a’s performance and temperature hold up somewhere between the Pixel 9 and the Pro XL. However, it’s worth noting that the phone is a bit quicker to throttle than the Pixel 9 but seems to settle more consistently from then on, indicating that minor throttling plays an essential factor in keeping the 9a’s temperatures in check.

In terms of temperatures and stability, the Pixel 9a peaked at 42.4°C and dropped to 79% of its peak performance, which is similar to the Pixel 9 Pro XL’s 42.9°C and 81% results. The Pixel 9, on the other hand, reached a hotter 44.2 C and suffered a drop to 72% of its best result. Even leaving a bit of leeway in these results for idle and environmental temperatures, there’s a small but clear performance difference between the Pixel 9 and 9a.

It’s hard to say precisely why the Pixel 9a performs slightly better than the Pixel 9 under stress. The earlier drop in performance is clearly a key component that will help keep temperatures down. Still, it’s also possible that the different internal layouts, such as more space dedicated to the battery, help the Pixel 9a move heat away from the chip quickly. We saw exactly the same phenomenon with last year’s Pixel 8a versus Pixel 8 as well. Clearly, better cooling and a larger surface area are important for the Tensor G4, as the gargantuan Pro model lasts 14 straight runs before throttling back performance to just above the 9a’s level.

In any case, this is a good result for the Pixel 9a. Although the Tensor G4 might not be the fastest gaming option on the market, the budget 9a will play games at very similar frame rates to its more expensive siblings without becoming too hot, even over longer gaming sessions.

Google’s A series has often stepped on the toes of its entry-level flagship in terms of both features and performance, and this continues to be the case with the regular Pixel 9 versus Pixel 9a.

While the Tensor G4 inside the Pixel 9a doesn’t quite live up to the heights of the far more expensive Pro and Pro XL models, it goes virtually toe to toe with the $799 model. Notably, there are no signs of overheating that would give me cause for concern that Google was using an inferior version of the chip for its budget model.

Whether you’re powering through multiple apps, snapping tons of photos, or even dabbling in some high-end gaming, the Pixel 9a and its Tensor G4 processor won’t let you down. The only real shame is that Google hasn’t bundled the Pixel 9a with enough RAM to run the full version of Gemini Nano, making it inferior in the AI department despite having the same raw processing capabilities.

Still, paired with a good-sized 5,100mAh battery, the Pixel 9a offers performance that’s pretty much on par with the flagship Pixel 9 and won’t run out of juice before the end of the day. I have no complaints about a phone that costs just $499, though performance junkies will undoubtedly have their eye on the affordable A18-powered iPhone 16e or one of the mightier Snapdragon 8 Elite flagships.