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 4800U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£300PassMark multi-core score:16410N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:FP6TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Ryzen 7 4800U Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 7 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 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 45%, Reviews score 25%, List score 20%, 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 63% of models
Score components

45%

6.0

Technical score

25%

8.6

Reviews score

20%

?

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 63% of processors
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 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 68% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

8.9

Price

â–²Better than 68%
6.0

Technical score

Technical score
6.0/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Score components

60%

5.7

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

5.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 54%
8.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.6/ 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
★ Better than 95% of models

80%

8.6

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
4 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 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.
★Better than 95%
?

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 20% 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
Best prices
    N/A~ £300
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 4800U

Technical score
Technical score
6.0/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Score components:

60%

5.7

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

5.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated graphics

6.0
Reviews score
8.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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 68% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

8.9

Price

7.6
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
FP6
This processor uses the FP6 CPU socket, which is older than that of 54.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 80.8% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 1.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x1.8 GHz which is higher than that of 49.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
16,410
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 16,410 in PassMark, which is higher than 61.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 70.4% of processors and equal to that of 10.5% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 55.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
?
L1 cache
512 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 512 KB which is larger than that of 62.8% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4, which is newer than that of 58.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,266 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,266 MHz, which is higher than that of 59.6% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-4266 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-4266 MHz, which is higher than that of 57.2% of processors and equal to 2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 8
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 8 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 73% of processors and equal to that in 3.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
8
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 8 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 73.9% of processors and equal to 7.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 10-25 W
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 7 4800U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 28.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 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
    ★ Better than 95% of models

    80%

    8.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    4 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    8.6 vs 6.7
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 43.1% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (16,410 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    16,410 vs 11,469
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    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
  • 28.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 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
    ★ Better than 95% of models

    80%

    8.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    4 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    8.6 vs 6.7
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 43.1% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (16,410 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    16,410 vs 11,469
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 37.2% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,847 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    3,847 vs 2,804.5
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    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
    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
  • 33.3% larger L1 cache
    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
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 45.6% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (68.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    68.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 33.3% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4266 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    4,266 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • 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
  • 4.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 8.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,401 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,401 vs 1,535
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, SMAP, SMEP, SME, TSME, SEV, SEV-ES vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, SMAP, SMEP, SME, TSME, SEV, SEV-ES vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • 10 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (18 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    18 vs 28
  • 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, SMAP, SMEP, SME, TSME, SEV, SEV-ES vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, SMAP, SMEP, SME, TSME, SEV, SEV-ES 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
  • 4.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 8.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,401 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,401 vs 1,535
  • 10 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (18 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    18 vs 28
  • 3.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (472 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    472 vs 490
  • 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
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • 5 °C 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

9.0
TECH360.TV
≈ estimated
29/09/2020
Hands-on review · two weeks of daily use
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 4800U delivers impressive performance in a thin laptop, though heat and gaming limits are worth noting.
9.0
Topfi
≈ estimated
11/09/2020
Hands-on review · performance, battery, display and Linux tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 4800U is a strong laptop with great battery life and performance, but buy the version with a full sRGB display.
9.5
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
05/09/2020
Hands-on review · CPU and gaming benchmarks · laptop efficiency tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 4800U is the fastest 15W processor available, beating Intel's U-series and rivaling H-series chips for CPU work.
Not graded
Brand video
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

What reviewers agree on

Based on 4 · 2

Reviewers praise its strong CPU performance and long battery life, but note heat and throttling, with graphics opinions split.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.5
techspot.com
✓ explicit
08/09/2020
Lab test · Ultraportable chip
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 4800U is a fast 15W laptop chip that beats Intel's Core i7-1065G7 by a wide margin, but it struggles with 4K color grading in Premiere.
9.0
hexus.net
≈ estimated
28/08/2020
Lab test · 14in ultrabook
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 4800U, an eight-core chip in the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7, suits quiet all-day office work, but its wobbly screen and basic webcam hold it back.
9.5
madboxpc.com
≈ estimated
21/09/2020
Lab test · Thin laptop
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 4800U delivers desktop-level multicore speed in a thin 25W laptop, with strong battery life but a glossy screen and noticeable heat.
9.8
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
14/09/2020
Full review · Ultrabook laptop
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 4800U delivers faster multicore speed than the Core i7-9700K desktop chip and almost 12 hours of battery life in office use, but it runs noticeably hot.

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 7 4800U

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance for an ultrabook-class processor, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads
  • High power efficiency and class-leading battery life, particularly in thin-and-light laptop designs
  • Strong integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics that can deliver playable experiences in modern games at 15W-25W
  • Significantly faster than contemporary Intel 'Ice Lake' and 'Comet Lake' U-series competitors in multi-core tasks
  • Strong performance scaling when power limits are increased from the base 15W up to 25W or higher

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

  • Single-core performance, while competitive, can be slightly behind Intel's top-tier 11th Gen Tiger Lake chips in specific tasks
  • Issues with compatibility and hardware acceleration in some professional software suites, notably Adobe Premiere and Photoshop
  • Limited availability of the high-end 4800U configuration in many markets compared to the 4700U
  • Can output significant heat if the laptop's thermal solution is not robust or if power limits are unlocked
  • Lacks support for Thunderbolt 3/4, which is often found on competing Intel-based ultraportables

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 4800U is a high-performance 8-core, 16-thread mobile processor built on the Zen 2 architecture and TSMC's 7nm process. Designed for thin-and-light laptops, it operates at a base clock of 1.8 GHz with a boost frequency of up to 4.2 GHz, supported by 8MB of L3 cache and a configurable TDP ranging from 10W to 25W. Main characteristics include the integrated Radeon RX Vega 8 graphics with 8 compute units clocked at 1750 MHz and support for dual-channel DDR4-3200 or energy-efficient LPDDR4x-4266 memory. Key pros are its exceptional multi-threaded performance and power efficiency, which often rival more power-hungry H-series chips and high-end competitors from the same era. Main cons include limited single-threaded gains in certain legacy applications, potential performance inconsistency depending on the specific laptop's cooling solution and power limits, and lack of support for newer standards like PCIe 4.0.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 4800U 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 4800U and other processors

No results found