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 5800U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark multi-core score:18032N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.4 GHzCPU socket:FP6TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Ryzen 7 5800U Review: Compare 74 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 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 64% of models
Score components

40%

6.2

Technical score

25%

8.3

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–²Better than 64% of processors
7.7

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 71% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–²Better than 71%
6.2

Technical score

Technical score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 56% of models
Score components

60%

6.2

Performance

18%

5.9

Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 56%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 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–² Better than 86% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
3 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 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–²Better than 86%
?

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~ £260
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 5800U

Based on 2 · 4

Reviewers praise its snappy performance and long battery life, but gaming graphics and the port selection disappoint.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800U

Technical score
Technical score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 56% of models
Score components:

60%

6.2

Performance

18%

5.9

Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated graphics

6.2
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
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 71% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

7.7
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, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 85.3% of processors and equal to that of 6% 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
4.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.4 GHz which is higher than that of 48.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 1.9 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x1.9 GHz which is higher than that of 53.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
18,032
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 18,032 in PassMark, which is higher than 64.4% 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
16 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
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/LPDDR4X
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 61.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% 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
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
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
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
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.
Show more

AMD Ryzen 7 5800U 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
  • 57.2% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,032 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,032 vs 11,469
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Cezanne vs Kaby Lake).
    Cezanne vs Kaby Lake
  • 23.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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–² Better than 86% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    3 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 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.
    8.3 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
  • 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
  • 23.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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–² Better than 86% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    3 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 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.
    8.3 vs 6.7
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 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, 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, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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
  • 57.2% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,032 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,032 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
  • 31.5% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,851 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,851 vs 5,209
  • 17% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,993 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,993 vs 2,558
  • 28.9% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,614 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    3,614 vs 2,804.5
  • 13.2% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,738 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,738 vs 1,535
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Cezanne vs Kaby Lake).
    Cezanne 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
  • 77.8% larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    16 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 2.16x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (10.7 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    10.7 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 33.3% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4,266 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    4,266 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 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
  • 13.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (425 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    425 vs 490
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Shadow Stack, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Shadow Stack, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 usable lanes
    12 vs 16
  • 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
  • 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)
  • 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
  • 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
  • 9 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (19 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    19 vs 28
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Shadow Stack, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Shadow Stack, SME 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
  • 13.3% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (425 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    425 vs 490
  • 9 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (19 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    19 vs 28
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 usable lanes
    12 vs 16
  • 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
  • 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)
  • 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
Hardware Canucks
≈ estimated
30/05/2021
Hands-on review · CPU benchmarks, battery and display tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 5800U offers top performance for a thin laptop chip, with weak integrated graphics as the main drawback.
9.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
16/04/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks and comparison with Intel
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 5800U is the best low-power chip for thin laptops, leading in multi-thread but trailing Intel in integrated graphics.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
techspot.com
✓ explicit
16/04/2021
Benchmark review · Thin laptop chip
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 5800U gives thin laptops eight cores that beat Intel's Tiger Lake by 75–80% in multi-thread work, but its graphics barely changed from the 4800U.
8.0
pcworld.com
≈ estimated
27/04/2021
Lab test · Laptop chip
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 5800U suits people who need multi-core power in thin laptops, while Intel's Core i7-1185G7 wins at gaming and AI tasks.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 7 5800U

  • High multi-threaded performance with 8 cores and 16 threads, excelling in rendering and compilation tasks
  • Significant 15-25% single-thread performance gains over previous generations due to Zen 3 architecture
  • Excellent energy efficiency with a 15W default TDP, suitable for thin and light ultraportable laptops
  • Doubled L3 cache (16MB) compared to Ryzen 4000 series, speeding up cache-heavy applications like Excel
  • Strong performance-per-watt ratio, often outperforming competing Intel Tiger Lake chips in CPU-bound tasks

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 5800U

  • Outdated integrated Vega GPU architecture which lacks performance improvements over the previous generation
  • Lacks support for modern platform features like Thunderbolt, USB4, and PCIe 4.0
  • Lower graphics performance compared to Intel Iris Xe and newer RDNA-based integrated solutions
  • Multi-threaded performance can be inconsistent at low power (15W) compared to the older 4800U
  • Historically limited availability in premium laptop designs compared to Intel equivalents

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800U is a high-efficiency mobile processor based on the 7nm Zen 3 architecture, featuring 8 cores, 16 threads, and a 16MB L3 cache. It operates at a base clock of 1.9 GHz with a max boost frequency of up to 4.4 GHz, all within a flexible 15W to 25W TDP range. Main pros include exceptional multi-threaded performance that dominates competing quad-core chips, significant IPC gains for faster single-thread tasks, and improved energy efficiency for thin-and-light laptops. However, it relies on older Vega 8 integrated graphics which lack significant gen-over-gen gains, and the platform typically misses modern features like Thunderbolt 4 or PCIe 4.0 support.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 5800U 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 5800U and other processors

No results found