OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD Ryzen 5 2500U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£550PassMark benchmark result:6486N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:FP5TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Ryzen 5 2500U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.0

Overall score

Score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

90%

4.0

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 89% of processors
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

4.3

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 86% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £550

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 Ryzen 5 2500U

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

4.3

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

4.0
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Ryzen 5 2500U has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

60%

4.0

Overall score

40%

7.6

Price

5.1
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FP5
CPU socket
FP5
▼ Worse than 57% of models
This processor uses the FP5 CPU socket, which is older than that of 57.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
▼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
▲ Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
▼ Worse than 77% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.6 GHz which is lower than that of 76.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
▼ Worse than 73% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz which is lower than that of 73.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
L2 cache
2 MB
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 51% of processors and equal to that of 11.2% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
L1 cache
384 KB
▲ Better than 45% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44.9% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
▼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
▼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
▼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 8
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 8
▲ Better than 73% of models
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 8 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 72.9% of processors and equal to that in 3.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
8
Integrated GPU execution units
8
▼ Worse than 74% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 8 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 74% of processors and equal to 7.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
?
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VP9 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VP9 (HW decode)
▼ Worse than 76% of models
This processor supports VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 76.2% of processors and equal to 3.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
▲ Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
▲ Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

AMD Ryzen 5 2500U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.75x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,922.48
    ▲ Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,922.5 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,922.48 vs 334.1
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 71.3% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    663.97
    ▲ Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (664 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    663.97 vs 387.66
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot
    ▲ Better than 53% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    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 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    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 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot
    ▲ Better than 53% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 5.75x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,922.48
    ▲ Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,922.5 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,922.48 vs 334.1
  • 71.3% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    663.97
    ▲ Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (664 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    663.97 vs 387.66
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 44.5% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    817
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (817 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    817 vs 1,471
  • 28.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,791
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,791 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,791 vs 2,500
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raven Ridge
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 16.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.6 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 50.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    2,395
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,395 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,395 vs 4,829
  • 51.6% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,352
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,352 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,352 vs 2,791
  • 32.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    328
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (328 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    328 vs 489
  • 29.7% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 5 2500U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.06 vs 6.6).
    5.06 vs 6.56
  • 2.2x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 5 2500U is more expensive than the average processor (£550 vs £250).
    £550 vs £250
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    ▼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    October 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 44.5% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    817
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (817 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    817 vs 1,471
  • 28.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,791
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,791 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,791 vs 2,500
  • 16.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.6 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 51.6% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,352
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,352 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,352 vs 2,791
  • 50.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    2,395
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,395 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,395 vs 4,829
  • 32.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    328
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (328 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    328 vs 489
  • 38.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,486
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,486 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,486 vs 10,572.5
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.0 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    20
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    20 vs 28
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raven Ridge
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 18.6% larger die size
    Die size
    210 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (210 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    210 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • 20% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    2 MB
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    2 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    12
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 usable lanes
    12 vs 16
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 18.2% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 16.2% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    38.4 GB/s
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    VP9 (HW decode)
    ▼ Worse than 76% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    8
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • 5 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    95 °C
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

T
techspot.com
21/12/2017
Summary of the review
Ryzen Mobile Finally Arrives: AMD Ryzen 5 2500U Review
H
hothardware.com
30/11/2017
Summary of the review
HP Envy x360 15z SSD Update | HotHardware
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
01/09/2018
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad E585 (Ryzen 5 2500U) Review
(Translated)Show original
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
01/12/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 2500U (Laptop) Review - Laptops and Mobiles
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
23/10/2018
Summary of the review
HP 17 Review (Ryzen 5 2500U, FHD, IPS, Vega 8)
(Translated)Show original
C
chip.de
19/02/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 2500U Review
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
22/01/2018
Summary of the review
Ryzen 5 2500U 'Raven Ridge' Review: AMD chases Intel at 15 Watts in notebooks
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
02/10/2018
Summary of the review
HP Pavilion 15 Review (AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, Vega 8) Laptop
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
02/03/2018
Summary of the review
HP Envy x360 15 Review (Ryzen 5 2500U, Vega 8, SSD, FHD) Convertible
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopspirit.fr
13/03/2019
Summary of the review
HP Envy x360 13 Review: A stylish 2-in-1 touchscreen ultrabook
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.org
25/10/2018
Summary of the review
HP 17 (Ryzen 5 2500U, FHD, IPS, Vega 8) Review
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.org
07/10/2018
Summary of the review
HP Pavilion 15 Review (AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, Vega 8)
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware
27/11/2017
Summary of the review
Ryzen Mobile Debuts with HP Envy x360: Initial Benchmarks vs Intel
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
08/05/2019
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 3500U vs AMD Ryzen 5 2500U – benchmarks and performance comparison
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
10/09/2018
Summary of the review
HP Envy 13 x360 Review: A Ryzen-powered 2-in-1 convertible
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
10/01/2018
Summary of the review
HP Envy x360 15-bq100nd review: Ryzen Mobile is finally here!
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
27/09/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen vs. Intel - Lenovo Yoga 530 Laptops Compared
(Translated)Show original
T
techtesters.eu
20/09/2019
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 Review & Buying Guide
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 5 2500U

  • Integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics significantly outperform competing Intel UHD solutions for light gaming
  • Strong multi-threading performance suitable for productivity and multitasking
  • Excellent price-to-performance ratio compared to contemporary Intel i5 mobile processors
  • Highly energy efficient with a 15W TDP, making it ideal for thin and light ultraportables
  • Maintains stable performance under extended multi-threaded loads with minimal throttling
  • Smooth 1080p video streaming and fast web browsing capabilities

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 5 2500U

  • Often limited by single-channel RAM configurations in budget laptops, which bottlenecks the iGPU
  • Poor battery life reported in many early laptop models compared to Intel-based equivalents
  • Susceptible to thermal throttling and loud fan noise under heavy gaming or high-pressure tasks
  • Lacks the single-threaded 'snappiness' found in equivalent Intel Core i5 and i7 processors
  • Integrated graphics struggle with modern AAA titles, often requiring 720p resolution and low settings
  • Driver stability was historically hit-or-miss, particularly in early gaming performance

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 2500U is a mid-range mobile APU from the Raven Ridge family, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 2.0 GHz and a boost up to 3.6 GHz. Built on a 14nm process with a nominal 15W TDP, it integrates Radeon RX Vega 8 graphics and supports dual-channel DDR4-2400 memory. Its primary advantages include strong multi-core performance comparable to contemporary Intel i5 chips and superior integrated graphics that handle light gaming and 1080p video playback better than most built-in alternatives. However, its main drawbacks include heavy power consumption that can impact battery life, thermal throttling that prevents sustained maximum boost clocks, and a significant dependence on memory bandwidth for optimal GPU performance.

Compare AMD Ryzen 5 2500U 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 Ryzen 5 2500U and other processors

No results found