OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Athlon Gold 7220U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£310PassMark multi-core score:4885N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.7 GHzCPU socket:FP6TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Athlon Gold 7220U Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.4/10

Overall score

Score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

40%

4.4

Technical score

25%

4.4

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 91% of processors
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

8.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
4.4

Technical score

Technical score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.3

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 75%
4.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models

4.4

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 83%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £310
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Athlon Gold 7220U

Technical score
Technical score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components:

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.3

Integrated graphics

4.4
Reviews score
4.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

8.9

Price

6.5
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FP6
This processor uses the FP6 CPU socket, which is older than that of 54.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 85.3% of processors and equal to that of 6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.7 GHz which is lower than that of 74.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.4 GHz which is lower than that of 89.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,885
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,885 in PassMark, which is lower than 73.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
6 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 6 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 81% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 6 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 6 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 80.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 87.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,500 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,500 MHz, which is higher than that of 77.3% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5500 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-5500 MHz, which is higher than that of 76.7% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 610M
This processor uses the Radeon 610M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 88.9% of processors and equal to that in 1.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.5% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,500 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,500 MHz which is higher than that of 97.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 82.1% of processors and equal to 3.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 8-15 W
Show more

AMD Athlon Gold 7220U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 50% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (6 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    6 nm vs 12 nm
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 87.6% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (88 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    88 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (100 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    100 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 71.9% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 50% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (6 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    6 nm vs 12 nm
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (100 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    100 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Mendocino vs Kaby Lake).
    Mendocino vs Kaby Lake
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 87.6% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (88 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    88 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 71.9% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5-5500 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5-5,500 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 610M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 610M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 4.29x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,500 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 34.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models

    4.4

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.4 vs 6.7
  • 57.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,885 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,885 vs 11,469
  • 58.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,171 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,171 vs 5,209
  • 62.1% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,064 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,064 vs 2,804.5
  • 15.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 31.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,047 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,047 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 34.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models

    4.4

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.4 vs 6.7
  • 12.8% worse value for money
    AMD Athlon Gold 7220U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.46 vs 7.3).
    6.46 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 57.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,885 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,885 vs 11,469
  • 58.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,171 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,171 vs 5,209
  • 62.1% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,064 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,064 vs 2,804.5
  • 15.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 31.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,047 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,047 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 14% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,201 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,201 vs 2,558
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 12 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (4 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    4 vs 16
  • 75% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Retro Tech Dad
≈ estimated
18/01/2023
Gameplay showcase · 25 games and power draw
Verdict
AMD Athlon Gold 7220U performs impressively for its power budget, making it a strong pick for future budget Windows handhelds.
9.0
Retro Tech Dad
≈ estimated
10/01/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming and emulation tests
Verdict
AMD Athlon Gold 7220U is a surprisingly capable budget APU that clearly beats the older Athlon 3050e, though some Xbox emulation remains out of reach.
Shop video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Athlon Gold 7220U

  • High energy efficiency with a 15W TDP, resulting in strong battery life for laptops
  • Excellent value for money, making it an ideal choice for budget-oriented devices under $400
  • Integrated RDNA 2 graphics (Radeon 610M) include modern features like AV1 decode support
  • Capable of handling light gaming, indie titles, and older esports games at 720p
  • Solid thermal performance, keeping devices cool even under load
  • Supports fast LPDDR5 memory up to 5500 MT/s, improving overall system responsiveness

What customers don't like about AMD Athlon Gold 7220U

  • Limited multi-core performance due to only having 2 cores and 4 threads
  • Uses older Zen 2 architecture rather than more modern Zen 3 or Zen 4 cores
  • Struggles with modern AAA games and demanding multitasking workloads
  • Locked multiplier prevents any overclocking to boost performance
  • Small L2 (1 MB) and L3 (4 MB) cache sizes compared to more powerful Ryzen alternatives

Verdict

The AMD Athlon Gold 7220U is a budget-oriented mobile processor from the Mendocino series, built on a 6nm FinFET process with the Zen 2 architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads with a base clock of 2.4 GHz and a boost clock of up to 3.7 GHz, supported by 1 MB of L2 and 4 MB of L3 cache. Its main strengths include high power efficiency with a low 15W TDP, support for modern LPDDR5-5500 memory, and an integrated Radeon 610M GPU based on the RDNA 2 architecture that supports AV1 video decoding. However, its primary drawbacks are the limited multi-core performance due to having only two physical cores and a restricted PCIe 3.0 interface (4 lanes), which makes it unsuitable for demanding productivity tasks or pairing with dedicated graphics.

Compare AMD Athlon Gold 7220U with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Athlon Gold 7220U and other processors

No results found