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 7 3750H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£400PassMark multi-core score:7947N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.0 GHzCPU socket:FP5TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD Ryzen 7 3750H Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 5 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 92% 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 92% of processors
6.3

Value for money

Value for money
6.3/ 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 93% of models
Score components

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

â–¼Worse than 93%
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 77% of models
Score components

60%

3.7

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 77%
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 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.1

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
1 review, with a printed score. 4 video reviews, each 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~ £400
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H

Based on 1 · 2

Runs cool and power-efficient, but reviewers agree it feels slow overall.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 7 3750H

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 77% of models
Score components:

60%

3.7

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

4.3
Reviews score
4.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 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 93% of models
Score components:

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

6.3
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, RDRAND, RDSEED, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 98.3% 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
4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4 GHz which is lower than that of 62.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.3 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
7,947
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 7,947 in PassMark, which is lower than 59.3% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
12 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 12 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 48% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 12 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 12 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 48.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% 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 10
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 10 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 76.4% of processors and equal to that in 0.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
10
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 10 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 72.7% of processors and equal to 1.1% 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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 57.2% of processors and equal to 9.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% 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: 12-35 W
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 7 3750H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.99x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,695.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,695.86 vs 340.075
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • Broader instruction support
    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, RDRAND, RDSEED, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon Vega 10 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon Vega 10 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • Broader instruction support
    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, RDRAND, RDSEED, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 4.99x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,695.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,695.86 vs 340.075
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon Vega 10 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon Vega 10 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 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 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    1 review, with a printed score. 4 video reviews, each 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
  • 35.6% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (988 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    988 vs 1,535
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Picasso vs Kaby Lake).
    Picasso vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 41.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,067 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,067 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 19.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2055 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,055 vs 2,558
  • 25.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (367 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    367 vs 490
  • 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 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    1 review, with a printed score. 4 video reviews, each 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
  • 15.8% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 7 3750H has worse value for money than the average processor (6.29 vs 7.3).
    6.29 vs 7.29
  • 60% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 3750H is more expensive than the average processor (£400 vs £250).
    £400 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Processor, SME, SEV 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
  • 35.6% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (988 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    988 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 41.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,067 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,067 vs 5,209
  • 19.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2055 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,055 vs 2,558
  • 25.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (367 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    367 vs 490
  • 9.1% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 30.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,947 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,947 vs 11,469
  • 35.5% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,809 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,809 vs 2,804.5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Picasso vs Kaby Lake).
    Picasso 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
  • 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
  • 18.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (210 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    210 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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.
    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
  • 23.7% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (35.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    35.8 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 58.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (10 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    10 vs 24
  • 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
Ricks Tech Repairs
≈ estimated
28/09/2020
Second-hand review · gaming and battery tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H offers good gaming value second-hand, but battery life and fan behaviour let it down.
8.0
Restalgia
≈ estimated
29/01/2020
Laptop review · game benchmarks and build tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H offers good gaming performance and a vibrant screen, but its audio and hinges are weak points.
7.0
OWNorDisown
≈ estimated
29/05/2019
Gaming laptop review · CPU and game benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H offers good gaming value, but its CPU holds performance back and a six-core chip would be better.
5.0
OWNorDisown
≈ estimated
17/11/2019
Head-to-head benchmark · AMD Ryzen 7 3750H vs Intel i5 9300H
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H trails the Intel i5 in most tests, winning only in Premiere Pro.
7.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
13/06/2019
Comparison · benchmarks against Intel i5-8300H
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H is a capable pick for budget laptops, but the Intel chip wins on raw performance.
9.0
Taylor Nave
≈ estimated
15/03/2021
Quick review · desktop use and monitor mounting
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 3750H is an excellent alternative to a floor tower if you don't need extra drive bays.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

5.0
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
✓ explicit
31/01/2020
Lab test · Laptop processor
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 3750H is a capable multi-core chip for laptops, but its single-core speed is modest and it trails 35-watt Intel rivals in sustained load.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 7 3750H

  • Affordable price point, making it common in budget-friendly gaming laptops
  • Strong integrated Radeon RX Vega 10 graphics compared to Intel counterparts of its time
  • Respectable multi-threaded performance for casual multitasking and office work
  • Lower TDP (35W) and power draw, which can contribute to better battery life in thin devices
  • Effective for light gaming (e.g., CS:GO, Minecraft) and older titles at 720p/1080p low settings

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 3750H

  • Outdated 12nm Zen+ architecture that lacks the IPC improvements of newer Zen 2/3 series
  • Lower single-core performance compared to Intel i5 and i7 processors of the same era
  • Significant bottlenecking in modern AAA titles or CPU-intensive games like Warzone
  • Prone to high temperatures and thermal throttling in budget laptop chassis
  • Limited to 4 cores and 8 threads, which falls behind newer 6-core or 8-core mobile alternatives

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 3750H is a mobile processor based on the 12nm Zen+ (Picasso) architecture, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 2.3 GHz and a maximum boost clock of 4.0 GHz. Designed for laptops, it operates with a 35W TDP and includes integrated Radeon RX Vega 10 graphics with 10 GPU cores clocked at 1400 MHz, alongside a 6MB total cache (2MB L2, 4MB L3) and support for dual-channel DDR4-2400 memory. Its main strengths include solid integrated graphics performance for casual gaming compared to Intel's UHD counterparts and better energy efficiency than 45W competitors, making it a viable budget-friendly option for light productivity and multitasking. However, it is hindered by a relatively low core count for modern heavy workloads, susceptibility to high operating temperatures (up to 105°C), and performance limitations that can bottleneck high-end discrete GPUs in demanding AAA titles.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 3750H 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 3750H and other processors

No results found