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 8500G review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£150PassMark multi-core score:21953N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:AM5TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500G Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.4/10

Overall score

Score
7.4/ 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–² Better than 73% of models
Score components

40%

7.5

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

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–²Better than 73% of processors
8.1

Value for money

Value for money
8.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 90% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

★Better than 90%
7.5

Technical score

Technical score
7.5/ 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–² Better than 77% of models
Score components

60%

7.3

Performance

18%

7.3

Architecture

10%

7.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.9

Platform

1%

8.5

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 77%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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~ £150
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...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #432 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500G

Technical score
Technical score
7.5/ 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–² Better than 77% of models
Score components:

60%

7.3

Performance

18%

7.3

Architecture

10%

7.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.9

Platform

1%

8.5

Integrated graphics

7.5
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
8.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 90% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

8.1
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM5
This processor uses the AM5 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 95% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Chipset
X870E, B850, B840, X670E, X670, B650E, B650, A620
This processor supports X870E, B850, B840, X670E, X670, B650E, B650, A620 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 91.9% of processors.
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, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
6
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 6 CPU cores, which is more than 47.7% of processors and equal to 13.4% of processors.
CPU threads
12
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 53% of processors and equal to 14.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5 GHz which is higher than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 4.1 GHz & 4x 3.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x4.1 GHz & 4x3.2 GHz which is higher than that of 66.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
21,953
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 21,953 in PassMark, which is higher than 73.8% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.7% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 7.8% of processors.
L3 cache
16 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
L2 cache
6 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 6 MB which is larger than that of 65.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% 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
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.6% of processors and equal to 6.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5200 MHz, which is higher than that of 71% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 740M
This processor uses the Radeon 740M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 92.5% of processors and equal to that in 1.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
4
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 4 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 90.1% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
2,800 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 2,800 MHz which is higher than that of 99.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 90.8% of processors and equal to 3.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% 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: 45-65 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500G vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 55.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,976 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,976 vs 2,558
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Phoenix 2 vs Kaby Lake).
    Phoenix 2 vs Kaby Lake
  • 91.4% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (21,953 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    21,953 vs 11,469
  • 81.3% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,444 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,444 vs 5,209
  • 53.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,354 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,354 vs 1,535
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    4 nm vs 12 nm
  • 10.9% better value for money
    AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500G has better value for money than the average processor (8.08 vs 7.3).
    8.08 vs 7.29
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM5 vs FP5).
    AM5 vs FP5
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    January 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 55.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,976 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,976 vs 2,558
  • 91.4% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (21,953 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    21,953 vs 11,469
  • 81.3% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,444 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,444 vs 5,209
  • 53.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,354 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,354 vs 1,535
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (2x4.1 GHz & 4x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x4.1 GHz & 4x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Phoenix 2 vs Kaby Lake).
    Phoenix 2 vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    4 nm vs 12 nm
  • 44.3% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2.7 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2.67 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 2x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    6 MB vs 3 MB
  • 22.6% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (137 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    137 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 77.8% larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    16 MB vs 9 MB
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 77.4% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (83.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    83.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 62.5% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 740M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 740M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 8x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (2,800 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    2,800 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
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 2 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (14 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    10 usable lanes
    14 vs 16
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24
  • 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, GMET 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 2 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (14 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    10 usable lanes
    14 vs 16
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500G

  • Exceptional energy efficiency, often staying under 40W even under heavy load.
  • Most affordable entry point into the modern AM5 platform with a solid upgrade path.
  • Integrated Radeon 740M graphics are capable of handling light 1080p gaming and eSports titles.
  • Faster boot times compared to higher-end Ryzen 7000 series CPUs due to the monolithic chip design.
  • Includes a functional stock cooler, helping to keep total system build costs low.
  • Excellent choice for Small Form Factor (SFF) or media PC builds due to low heat output.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500G

  • Severely limited PCIe bandwidth (only 4 lanes for a dedicated GPU), which can bottleneck higher-end graphics cards.
  • Lacks the dedicated NPU (AI accelerator) found in more expensive Ryzen 8000 series models.
  • Uses a mix of Zen 4 and slower Zen 4c cores, which can result in lower performance compared to the 'full' Zen 4 cores in the 8600G.
  • Integrated graphics (4 Compute Units) are significantly weaker than the 8600G (8 CUs) and 8700G (12 CUs).
  • No support for multiplier-based overclocking, limiting performance tuning options.
  • Smaller L3 cache compared to standard desktop Ryzen 7000 series CPUs, which impacts gaming performance when using a dedicated GPU.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500G is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop processor built on the 4nm TSMC FinFET process, featuring a hybrid architecture of 2 Zen 4 cores and 4 power-efficient Zen 4c cores. Operating on the AM5 socket, it delivers a base clock of 3.5 GHz with a boost up to 5.0 GHz, supported by 16MB of L3 cache and a default TDP of 65W. Key advantages include integrated Radeon 740M graphics (4 cores at 2800 MHz) for casual gaming without a discrete GPU, high power efficiency (often under 50W), and professional-grade AMD PRO security and manageability features. However, it is limited by only 10 usable PCIe 4.0 lanes, which can throttle dedicated GPUs and high-speed NVMe SSDs, and it lacks the dedicated Ryzen AI engine found in higher-end 8000G models.

Compare AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500G 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 8500G and other processors

No results found