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 Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£35PassMark multi-core score:6623N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:FP5TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U 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%

4.3

Technical score

25%

4.3

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
6.8

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–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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 76% of models
Score components

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

4.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 76%
4.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.3/ 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 85% of models

4.3

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

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 85%
?

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~ £35
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 PRO 2500U

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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 76% of models
Score components:

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

4.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated graphics

4.3
Reviews score
4.3
List score
?
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–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.8
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
FP5
This processor uses the FP5 CPU socket, which is older than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% 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
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 80.8% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.6 GHz which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 3.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz which is lower than that of 74.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
6,623
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 6,623 in PassMark, which is lower than 65% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 51.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% 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
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 8
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 8 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 73% of processors and equal to that in 3.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
8
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 8 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 73.9% of processors and equal to 7.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
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: 12-25 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 62.9% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,501 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,501 vs 1,535
  • 5.65x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,922.5 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,922.48 vs 340.075
  • 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
  • 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
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 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
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 62.9% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,501 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,501 vs 1,535
  • 5.65x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,922.5 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,922.48 vs 340.075
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 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
  • 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
  • 35.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 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 85% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    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.
    4.3 vs 6.7
  • 18.2% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 29.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,805 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,805 vs 2,558
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 52% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,501 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,501 vs 5,209
  • 33.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (328 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    328 vs 490
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 51.8% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,352 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,352 vs 2,804.5
  • 35.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 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 85% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    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.
    4.3 vs 6.7
  • 7.5% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.78 vs 7.3).
    6.78 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot 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
  • 18.2% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 29.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,805 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,805 vs 2,558
  • 52% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,501 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,501 vs 5,209
  • 33.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (328 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    328 vs 490
  • 51.8% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,352 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,352 vs 2,804.5
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 42.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,623 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,623 vs 11,469
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    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
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 16.7% larger process node
    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
  • 39% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (246 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    246 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    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
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 50% less memory capacity
    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
    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
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    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 temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    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

7.0
Bits inside by René Rebe
≈ estimated
18/09/2018
First look · unboxing, Linux and performance tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U delivers strong performance with a solid ThinkPad build, but battery life and idle power draw are still unclear.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U

  • Integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics significantly outperform Intel UHD 620 competitors
  • Excellent value for money, offering multi-core performance comparable to 8th-Gen Intel i5/i7 at a lower price point
  • Efficient multitasking with 4 cores and 8 threads for productivity tasks
  • Supports hardware virtualization and additional PRO security features for business use
  • Capable of light 720p/1080p gaming on low settings for titles like CS:GO and Dota 2

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U

  • Prone to thermal throttling in slim laptop chassis, which can significantly drop clock speeds
  • Higher power consumption during video playback compared to Intel counterparts, affecting battery life
  • Highly dependent on dual-channel RAM; performance is severely bottlenecked in single-channel configurations
  • Driver support has been historically inconsistent, with some users reporting stability issues and crashes
  • Performance in modern AAA games is 'hit and miss,' often requiring 720p resolution and lowest settings

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U is a quad-core, eight-thread mobile APU based on the 14nm Zen (Raven Ridge) architecture, featuring a base clock of 2.0 GHz and a boost clock of up to 3.6 GHz. Designed for thin-and-light business laptops, it includes 4MB of L3 cache, supports DDR4-2400 memory, and integrates Radeon Vega 8 graphics with 8 compute units (512 shaders) running at up to 1100 MHz. Its main characteristics include a nominal 15W TDP (configurable between 12W and 25W) and professional-grade security features like AMD Memory Guard. Key pros include strong multi-core performance for its class, ECC memory support, and an integrated GPU that significantly outperforms similar Intel UHD offerings of its era. Cons include being officially unsupported for Windows 11, sensitivity to thermal and power throttling in slim chassis, and a lack of support for newer, faster memory standards beyond DDR4-2400.

Compare AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 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 PRO 2500U and other processors

No results found