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 4600H Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark benchmark result:14140N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.0 GHzCPU socket:FP6TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

AMD Ryzen 5 4600H Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.5

Overall score

Score
5.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
Score components

90%

5.5

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 53% of processors
5.5

Technical score

Technical score
5.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components

60%

4.9

Performance

18%

5.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 51% 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £110

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 4600H

Technical score
Technical score
5.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components:

60%

4.9

Performance

18%

5.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

5.5
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Ryzen 5 4600H 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
6.8/ 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–² Better than 56% of models
Score components:

60%

5.5

Overall score

40%

9.9

Price

6.8
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ 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
FP6
CPU socket
FP6
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor uses the FP6 CPU socket, which is older than that of 52.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² 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
6
N. of physical cores
6
â–² Better than 50% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 6 CPU cores, which is more than 49.9% of processors and equal to 13.4% of processors.
CPU threads
12
CPU threads
12
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 55% of processors and equal to 14.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–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
4 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4 GHz which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 3.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
6x 3.0 GHz
â–² Better than 61% of models
This processor has a base clock of 6x3.0 GHz which is higher than that of 61.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Semiconductor size
7 nm
â–² Better than 72% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 71.5% of processors and equal to that of 10.9% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
â–² Better than 57% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
L3 cache
8 MB
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 39.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.8% of processors.
L2 cache
3 MB
L2 cache
3 MB
â–² Better than 51% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 3 MB which is larger than that of 50.5% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
L1 cache
384 KB
â–² 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/LPDDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
â–² Better than 60% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4, which is newer than that of 60.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,266 MHz
Maximum memory speed
4,266 MHz
â–² Better than 62% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,266 MHz, which is higher than that of 61.5% of processors and equal to 2.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-4266 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-4266 MHz
â–² Better than 59% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-4266 MHz, which is higher than that of 58.6% of processors and equal to 2.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 6
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 6
â–² Better than 68% of models
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 6 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 68.5% of processors and equal to that in 2.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
6
Integrated GPU execution units
6
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.8% of processors and equal to 6.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 56.2% of processors and equal to 9.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 40.1% of processors and equal to that of 11.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Base power (PL1)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 39.9% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 5 4600H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Renoir
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    7 nm
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • 37.3% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    6,631
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,631 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,631 vs 4,829
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 33.7% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    14,140
    â–² Better than 59% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (14,140 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    14,140 vs 10,572.5
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET, SME, TSME
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET, SME, TSME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET, SME, TSME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 49.1% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    68.3 GB/s
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (68.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    68.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET, SME, TSME
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET, SME, TSME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET, SME, TSME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs 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
    â–² 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
  • 37.3% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    6,631
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,631 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,631 vs 4,829
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 33.7% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    14,140
    â–² Better than 59% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (14,140 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    14,140 vs 10,572.5
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    6 x 3.0 GHz
    â–² Better than 61% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    6x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 23.2% better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    3,438
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,438 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    3,438 vs 2,791
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Renoir
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    7 nm
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 7 nm
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 49.1% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    68.3 GB/s
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (68.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    68.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 45.4% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    4,266 MHz
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4266 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    4,266 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 59.8% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    134.28
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (134.3 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    134.28 vs 334.1
  • 7% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.0 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ 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
  • 8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    450
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (450 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    450 vs 489
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    6
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (6 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    6 vs 24
  • 5.8% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,385
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,385 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,385 vs 1,471
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ 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
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ 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
  • 7% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.0 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 59.8% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    134.28
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (134.3 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    134.28 vs 334.1
  • 8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    450
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (450 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    450 vs 489
  • 5.8% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,385
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,385 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,385 vs 1,471
  • 3.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,413
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,413 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,413 vs 2,500
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    6
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (6 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    6 vs 24
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ 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

L
laptopmedia.com
30/03/2021
Summary of the review
All our articles with Ryzen 5 4600H tag YouTube
L
laptopmedia.com
10/11/2020
Summary of the review
[Comparison] AMD Ryzen 5 4600H vs Intel Core i7-1065G7
T
techspot.com
19/05/2020
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 4600H Review: Fastest Entry-Level Laptop CPU Ever
L
laptopmedia.com
23/07/2021
Summary of the review
[Comparison] AMD Ryzen 5 5600H vs Ryzen 5 4600H
V
valid.x86.fr
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Benchmark for AMD Ryzen 5 4600H (4T) - x86 Valid
(Translated)Show original
F
forbes.com.mx
11/06/2021
Summary of the review
Huawei MateBook D 16: Great versatility and power, but...
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
10/01/2020
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 4600H - Specifications and Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
05/10/2020
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 4600H vs Ryzen 7 4800H Comparison – Ryzen 7 Leads the Way by 17%
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
23/07/2021
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 5600H vs Ryzen 5 4600H Comparison: Even in defeat, the Ryzen 5 4600H is still worth considering", "AMD Ryzen 5 5600H vs Ryzen 5 4600H: Des...
(Translated)Show original
T
techtesters.eu
20/09/2019
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 Review & Buying Advice - Techtesters
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
24/04/2023
Summary of the review
Lenovo IdeaPad Gaming: Gaming laptop with GTX 1650 for 555 euros - Comparison table - Hardware Info
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
24/04/2023
Summary of the review
Lenovo IdeaPad Gaming Review: Gaming Laptop with GTX 1650 for 555 Euros - Benchmarks & Display
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
01/06/2023
Summary of the review
Laptop Best Buy Guide - June 2023: Affordable yet powerful with Ryzen 5
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
11/03/2020
Summary of the review
Asus TUF Gaming A15 hands-on review: AMD meets Nvidia
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
19/09/2020
Summary of the review
Honor MagicBook Pro Review: AMD Ryzen 5 4600H Performance!
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
09/07/2023
Summary of the review
Laptop Best Buy Guide August 2023: The best laptops under 500 euros
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 5 4600H

  • Exceptional multi-core performance for its price class, often rivaling or beating Intel Core i7 10th Gen processors in productivity tasks
  • Strong value for money, frequently described as a top choice for entry-level and mid-range gaming laptops
  • High efficiency due to the 7nm Zen 2 architecture, leading to better battery life in many laptop models
  • Impressive performance in creative workloads like video editing (Premiere Pro) and photo editing (Photoshop)
  • Reliable integrated Radeon Vega 6 graphics that can handle many modern games at decent frame rates even without a dedicated GPU

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 5 4600H

  • Lower single-core performance compared to some Intel competitors and newer Ryzen 5000 series chips, which can impact specific high-refresh gaming scenarios
  • Becomes a potential bottleneck for high-end dedicated GPUs (like RTX 2060 or higher) in newer, CPU-intensive game releases
  • Locked multiplier prevents manual overclocking for enthusiasts seeking extra performance
  • Performance is heavily dependent on the laptop's specific cooling system and memory configuration (suffers significantly in single-channel RAM setups)
  • Considered outdated by current standards as it has been superseded by multiple generations (5000, 6000, and 7000 series) with significant IPC improvements

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600H is a high-performance mobile processor based on the 7nm Zen 2 architecture, specifically designed for gaming and productivity laptops. It features 6 cores and 12 threads with a base clock of 3.0 GHz and a turbo boost up to 4.0 GHz, supported by 8MB of L3 cache and a standard 45W TDP. Main pros include exceptional multi-threaded performance that rivalled much more expensive Intel Core i7 and i9 chips of its era, high energy efficiency due to the TSMC 7nm process, and capable integrated Radeon RX Vega 6 graphics. However, its main cons include its age as a 2020-released part which may bottleneck modern AAA titles, lack of an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and a high reliance on dual-channel memory to reach its full potential.

Compare AMD Ryzen 5 4600H 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 4600H and other processors

No results found