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 7 250 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£550PassMark benchmark result:25251N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.1 GHzCPU socket:FP8TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

AMD Ryzen 7 250 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.7

Overall score

Score
7.7/ 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–² Better than 82% of models
Score components

90%

7.7

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–²Better than 82% of processors
7.7

Technical score

Technical score
7.7/ 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–² Better than 82% of models
Score components

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

7.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated Graphics

â–²Better than 82% 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~ £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 7 250

Technical score
Technical score
7.7/ 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–² Better than 82% of models
Score components:

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

7.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated Graphics

7.7
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 7 250 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
7.7/ 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 79% of models
Score components:

60%

7.7

Overall score

40%

7.6

Price

7.7
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
FP8
CPU socket
FP8
â–² Better than 52% of models
This processor uses the FP8 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% 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
8
N. of physical cores
8
â–² Better than 63% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 63.4% of processors and equal to 13.6% of processors.
CPU threads
16
CPU threads
16
â–² Better than 71% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 71% of processors and equal to 14% 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
5.1 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
5.1 GHz
â–² Better than 86% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.1 GHz which is higher than that of 86.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.3 GHz
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.3 GHz
â–² Better than 79% of models
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.3 GHz which is higher than that of 78.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Semiconductor size
4 nm
â–² Better than 88% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 88.5% of processors and equal to that of 7.4% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
â–² Better than 87% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 87% of processors and equal to that of 7.5% of processors.
L3 cache
16 MB
L3 cache
16 MB
â–² Better than 64% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.7% of processors.
L2 cache
8 MB
L2 cache
8 MB
â–² Better than 74% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 73.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.1% of processors.
L1 cache
512 KB
L1 cache
512 KB
â–² Better than 63% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 512 KB which is larger than that of 63.5% of processors and equal to that of 9.5% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
DDR memory version
DDR5
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
7,500 MHz
Maximum memory speed
7,500 MHz
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 7,500 MHz, which is higher than that of 93.3% of processors and equal to 3.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5600 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5600 MHz
â–² Better than 79% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5600 MHz, which is higher than that of 78.8% of processors and equal to 5.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
â–² Better than 89% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89.5% of processors and equal to 8.2% 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 780M
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 780M
★ Better than 96% of models
This processor uses the Radeon 780M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 95.9% of processors and equal to that in 1.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Integrated GPU execution units
12
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
800 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
800 MHz
â–² Better than 87% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 800 MHz which is higher than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode/encode)
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
â–² Better than 67% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.5% of processors and equal to that of 7% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Base power (PL1)
28 W
â–² Better than 67% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.2% of processors and equal to that of 7.2% 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.
Show more

AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.39x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    25,251
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,251 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    25,251 vs 10,572.5
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Hawk Point
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 78.9% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,632
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,632 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,632 vs 1,471
  • 50.2% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,756
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,756 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,756 vs 2,500
  • 90.2% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    9,185
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,185 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,185 vs 4,829
  • 18.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.1 GHz
    â–² Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 8 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    16
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 4x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    256 GB
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    February 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
    â–² Better than 78% 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, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V 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, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 2.39x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    25,251
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,251 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    25,251 vs 10,572.5
  • 78.9% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,632
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,632 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,632 vs 1,471
  • 50.2% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,756
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,756 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,756 vs 2,500
  • 90.2% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    9,185
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,185 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,185 vs 4,829
  • 18.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.1 GHz
    â–² Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 8 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    16
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    8 x 3.3 GHz
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    8
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Hawk Point
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    4 nm
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 3.2x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    8 MB
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    8 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 4 nm
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    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
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • 5.05x more transistors
    N. of transistors
    25 billion
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (25 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    25 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 2x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    16 MB
    â–² Better than 64% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    16 MB vs 8 MB
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 33.3% larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    512 KB
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (512 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    512 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2.56x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    7,500 MHz
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7500 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 4x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    256 GB
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
  • 95.6% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    89.6 GB/s
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (89.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR5
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR5-5600 MHz
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon 780M
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 780M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 780M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 2.29x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    800 MHz
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (800 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 350 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
  • 37.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    28 W
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    28 W
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode/encode)
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 2.2x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 250 is more expensive than the average processor (£550 vs £250).
    £550 vs £250
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 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
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24
  • 2.2x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 250 is more expensive than the average processor (£550 vs £250).
    £550 vs £250
  • 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
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode/encode)
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24

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
01/01/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 7 250 Performance and Benchmark Tests
C
cpubenchmark.net
01/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 7 250 - CPU Performance Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
25/02/2026
Summary of the review
Lenovo LOQ 15 (Gen 10, 15AHP10) Review
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
18/02/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 7 250 - Specifications and Benchmarks (Cinebench and Geekbench)
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
07/10/2025
Summary of the review
This more affordable AMD Ryzen 7 version is still a winner: HP EliteBook 845 G11 laptop review
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 7 250

  • High power efficiency and low TDP (typically 28W), leading to excellent battery life in laptops.
  • Features the Radeon 780M integrated graphics, which is capable of 1080p gaming on low to medium settings.
  • Solid multi-core performance for its power class, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads using the Zen 4 architecture.
  • Integrated Ryzen AI engine (NPU) provides 16 TOPS of performance for AI-enhanced tasks.
  • Runs significantly cooler than higher-wattage HX-series processors, reducing thermal throttling issues.

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 250

  • It is a rebrand of previous generation hardware (Ryzen 7 8840U), offering no major architectural improvements.
  • The 16 TOPS NPU does not meet the 40 TOPS requirement for Microsoft Copilot+ certification.
  • Locked multiplier prevents users from manual overclocking to gain extra performance.
  • As a soldered BGA chip (Socket FP8), it is not user-replaceable or upgradeable.
  • Performance is highly dependent on the specific laptop's cooling solution and manufacturer-defined power limits.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is an 8-core, 16-thread laptop processor based on the 4nm Zen 4 'Hawk Point' architecture, featuring a base clock of 3.3 GHz and a maximum boost clock of 5.1 GHz. Key specifications include 16 MB of L3 cache, an integrated Radeon 780M GPU (2700 MHz), and a dedicated NPU for AI workloads with 16 TOPS performance, all within a power-efficient 28W default TDP. Its primary advantages are high energy efficiency, stable performance under sustained loads compared to power-hungry competitors, and support for fast LPDDR5x-7500 RAM and USB 4. However, it is not user-replaceable as it is soldered to the motherboard, lacks an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and its 16 TOPS NPU does not meet the minimum requirements for Copilot+ certification.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 250 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 7 250 and other processors

No results found