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 4800HS Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£970PassMark benchmark result:17971N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:FP6TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.9

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 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 52% of models
Score components

90%

5.9

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–²Better than 52% of processors
5.9

Technical score

Technical score
5.9/ 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 54% of models
Score components

60%

5.7

Performance

18%

5.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

â–²Better than 54% 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~ £970

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 4800HS

Technical score
Technical score
5.9/ 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 54% of models
Score components:

60%

5.7

Performance

18%

5.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

5.9
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 4800HS 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
5.7/ 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–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

60%

5.9

Overall score

40%

5.4

Price

5.7
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
FP6
CPU socket
FP6
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor uses the FP6 CPU socket, which is older than that of 52.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
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
4.2 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 51.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.9 GHz
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.9 GHz
â–² Better than 73% of models
This processor has a base clock of 8x2.9 GHz which is higher than that of 73.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Semiconductor size
7 nm
â–² Better than 72% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 71.5% of processors and equal to that of 10.9% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
â–² Better than 57% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
L3 cache
8 MB
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 39.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.8% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
L2 cache
4 MB
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% 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
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,266 MHz
Maximum memory speed
4,266 MHz
â–² Better than 62% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,266 MHz, which is higher than that of 61.5% of processors and equal to 2.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-4266 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-4266 MHz
â–² Better than 58% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4X-4266 MHz, which is higher than that of 58.3% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 7
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 7
â–² Better than 71% of models
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 7 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 70.7% of processors and equal to that in 2.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
7
Integrated GPU execution units
7
â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 7 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 81.3% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 56.2% of processors and equal to 9.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 40.1% of processors and equal to that of 11.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
?
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 34-54 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 7.63x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    2,548
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,548 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,548 vs 334.1
  • 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
  • 70% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    17,971
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (17,971 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    17,971 vs 10,572.5
  • 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
    Renoir
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    8 x 2.9 GHz
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    8x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    7 nm
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ABM
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ABM vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ABM vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, SME, TSME, SEV, SEV-ES
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, SME, TSME, SEV, SEV-ES vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, SME, TSME, SEV, SEV-ES vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 7.63x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    2,548
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,548 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,548 vs 334.1
  • 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
  • 70% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    17,971
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (17,971 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    17,971 vs 10,572.5
  • 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
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    8 x 2.9 GHz
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    8x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 34.5% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    6,493
    â–² Better than 59% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,493 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,493 vs 4,829
  • 38.6% better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    3,869
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,869 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    3,869 vs 2,791
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Renoir
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    7 nm
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 7 nm
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    4 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 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
  • 45.4% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    4,266 MHz
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4266 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    4,266 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 46.4% slower Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    207.84
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (207.8 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    207.84 vs 387.66
  • 3.88x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS is more expensive than the average processor (£970 vs £250).
    £970 vs £250
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 14.8% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS has worse value for money than the average processor (5.72 vs 6.6).
    5.72 vs 6.56
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x16
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 70.8% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    7
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (7 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    7 vs 24
  • 3.88x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS is more expensive than the average processor (£970 vs £250).
    £970 vs £250
  • 14.8% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS has worse value for money than the average processor (5.72 vs 6.6).
    5.72 vs 6.56
  • 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
  • 46.4% slower Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    207.84
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (207.8 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    207.84 vs 387.66
  • 2.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.2 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 3.5% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    472
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (472 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    472 vs 489
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x16
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 70.8% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    7
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (7 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    7 vs 24
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

U
ultrabookreview.com
30/03/2020
Summary of the review
Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 GA401IV review (Ryzen 7 4800HS version)
T
techradar.com
11/03/2020
Summary of the review
Hands on: Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 review - TechRadar
R
rog.asus.com
08/07/2020
Summary of the review
ROG Zephyrus G14 lab report - ASUS
M
melty.fr
30/06/2020
Summary of the review
Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 Review: A fun gimmick, but more than meets the eye
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopspirit.fr
01/04/2020
Summary of the review
Ryzen 7 4800HS - LaptopSpirit
(Translated)Show original
H
hwupgrade.it
11/09/2020
Summary of the review
Lenovo Yoga Slim 7: the compact notebook with Ryzen 4000
(Translated)Show original
M
macitynet.it
06/11/2020
Summary of the review
Asus ROG GA401I-HE172T Review: A gaming notebook also perfect for creators
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
01/04/2021
Summary of the review
Laptop Best Buy Guide - April 2021
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
09/05/2020
Summary of the review
MSI Bravo 17: All-in on AMD - Processor Performance
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
30/03/2020
Summary of the review
Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 review: Ryzen revolution
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS

  • Excellent multi-threaded performance, often outperforming competing Intel Core i7 and even some i9 processors of its generation in tasks like video encoding and code compilation.
  • Highly power-efficient 7nm architecture, specifically the 35W HS variant which maintains high performance at a lower power draw compared to the standard 45W 4800H.
  • Strong value proposition, typically found in laptops that are significantly more affordable than Intel-based counterparts with similar performance.
  • Integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics are capable of handling light gaming and basic productivity tasks effectively.
  • Exceptional multitasking capabilities thanks to 8 physical cores and 16 threads.
  • Good future-proofing for general office work and content creation due to high core count.

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS

  • Lower single-core performance compared to newer generations (Zen 3/5000 series and beyond) and some contemporary Intel high-end chips.
  • Prone to high operating temperatures (heating) in compact laptop chassis, necessitating robust active cooling solutions.
  • Lacks support for modern standards like PCIe 4.0 or AV1 hardware decoding, which may limit longevity for specific video workflows.
  • No official support for overclocking due to a locked multiplier.
  • Performance is highly dependent on the laptop's specific thermal and power limits (TDP) set by the manufacturer.
  • Some specific software, such as certain Adobe products and Android emulators (HAXM), may have compatibility or optimization issues compared to Intel systems.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS is a high-performance mobile processor based on the Zen 2 (Renoir) architecture, featuring 8 cores, 16 threads, and a 7nm manufacturing process. It operates at a base clock speed of 2.9 GHz with a max boost frequency of up to 4.2 GHz, supported by 8MB of L3 cache and integrated Radeon RX Vega 7 graphics. A standout characteristic is its binned 35W TDP, which allows it to deliver multi-threaded performance comparable to the 45W Ryzen 7 4800H while consuming less power, making it ideal for slim gaming laptops. Main pros include exceptional power efficiency for its class, strong multi-core performance for productivity tasks like video editing, and support for high-speed LPDDR4-4266 RAM. However, notable cons include its lack of PCIe 4.0 support, an aging integrated GPU compared to newer generations, and the fact that it is a soldered BGA component that cannot be upgraded.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS 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 4800HS and other processors

No results found