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 6800H Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£390PassMark benchmark result:22840N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:FP7TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

AMD Ryzen 7 6800H Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.0

Overall score

Score
7.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 70% of models
Score components

90%

7.0

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▲Better than 70% of processors
7.0

Technical score

Technical score
7.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 70% of models
Score components

60%

7.0

Performance

18%

6.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated Graphics

▲Better than 70% 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £390

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 6800H

Technical score
Technical score
7.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 70% of models
Score components:

60%

7.0

Performance

18%

6.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated Graphics

7.0
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Ryzen 7 6800H has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 72% of models
Score components:

60%

7.0

Overall score

40%

8.5

Price

7.4
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ 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
FP7
CPU socket
FP7
▼ Worse than 48% of models
This processor uses the FP7 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 47.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ 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
▲ 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
▲ 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
▲ 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
4.7 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.7 GHz
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.7 GHz which is higher than that of 67.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.2 GHz
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.2 GHz
▲ Better than 77% of models
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.2 GHz which is higher than that of 76.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
6 nm
Semiconductor size
6 nm
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 6 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 82.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 6 nm
Foundry
TSMC 6 nm
▲ Better than 81% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 6 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 81.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L3 cache
16 MB
L3 cache
16 MB
▲ Better than 64% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.7% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
L2 cache
4 MB
▲ 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
▲ Better than 63% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 512 KB which is larger than that of 63.5% of processors and equal to that of 9.5% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
DDR memory version
DDR5
▲ Better than 66% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to 8.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-6400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-6400 MHz
▲ Better than 84% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 84.4% of processors and equal to 3.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
▼ 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
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
AMD Radeon 680M
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 680M
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 680M
★ Better than 92% of models
This processor uses the Radeon 680M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 91.9% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Integrated GPU execution units
12
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
2,200 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
2,200 MHz
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 2,200 MHz which is higher than that of 99.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
▼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 63.1% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
▼ 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)
45 W
Base power (PL1)
45 W
▼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 39.9% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

AMD Ryzen 7 6800H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.16x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    22,840
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (22,840 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    22,840 vs 10,572.5
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Rembrandt
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Rembrandt vs Kaby Lake).
    Rembrandt vs Kaby Lake
  • 83.2% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    8,847
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,847 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,847 vs 4,829
  • 8 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    16
    ▲ 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
  • 81.8% better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    5,074
    ▲ Better than 73% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,074 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,074 vs 2,791
  • 2.18x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    6,400 MHz
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 39.8% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2056
    ▲ Better than 69% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2056 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,056 vs 1,471
  • 27.9% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,197
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,197 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,197 vs 2,500
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Shadow Stack, GMET, SME, TSME, SEV, Pluton
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Shadow Stack, GMET, SME, TSME, SEV, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Shadow Stack, GMET, SME, TSME, SEV, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, VAES, SHA
    ▲ Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, VAES, SHA vs AES, SHA
  • 2.16x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    22,840
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (22,840 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    22,840 vs 10,572.5
  • 83.2% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    8,847
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,847 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,847 vs 4,829
  • 8 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    16
    ▲ 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
  • 81.8% better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    5,074
    ▲ Better than 73% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,074 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,074 vs 2,791
  • 39.8% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2056
    ▲ Better than 69% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2056 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,056 vs 1,471
  • 27.9% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,197
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,197 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,197 vs 2,500
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    8 x 3.2 GHz
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    8x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 9.3% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.7 GHz
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    8
    ▲ 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
  • 16.6% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    570
    ▲ Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (570 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    570 vs 489
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Rembrandt
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Rembrandt vs Kaby Lake).
    Rembrandt vs Kaby Lake
  • 50% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    6 nm
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (6 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    6 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 6 nm
    ▲ Better than 81% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    16 MB
    ▲ Better than 64% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    16 MB vs 8 MB
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    ▲ Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    ▲ 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
    ▲ Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (512 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    512 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2.18x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    6,400 MHz
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    ▲ Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    ▲ Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    16 usable lanes
    20 vs 16
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR5
    ▲ Better than 66% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 67.7% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    76.8 GB/s
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (76.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    76.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5-6400 MHz
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon 680M
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 680M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 680M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 6.29x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    2,200 MHz
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (2200 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    2,200 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    95 °C
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 5 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    95 °C
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode)
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 17.5% larger die size
    Die size
    208 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (208 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    208 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 56% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is more expensive than the average processor (£390 vs £250).
    £390 vs £250
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24
  • 56% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is more expensive than the average processor (£390 vs £250).
    £390 vs £250
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    ▼ 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
  • 17.5% larger die size
    Die size
    208 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (208 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    208 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode)
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24
  • 5 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    95 °C
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

9.0
Chigz Tech Reviews
✓ explicit
20/02/2025
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming tests and specifications
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 6800H mini PC delivers strong performance and connectivity, among the best buys for the money.
9.0
Hubwood
≈ estimated
20/03/2022
Gaming benchmark · 20 games tested at 1080p
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 6800H's integrated graphics run most games at 30 fps or higher at 1080p, which is impressive for an APU.
9.0
Ben G Kaiser
≈ estimated
19/10/2022
Unboxing · first impressions, ports and build tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 6800H system is well built with strong performance and features, but its trackpad is small and the RGB keyboard hurts battery life.
5.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
10/10/2022
Comparison · same laptop chassis, games and application tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is only a minor refresh over the 5800H, so it is not worth a big price premium.
5.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
19/06/2022
Benchmark comparison · productivity, power and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 6800H offers little real upgrade over its predecessor, and the Intel chip is faster in most workloads.
Shop video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded yet
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

techspot.com
01/07/2022
Laptop chip review · Benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is a modest step up from the 5800H, but the Core i7-12700H beats it in most workloads, especially at higher power.
lesnumeriques.com
03/06/2022
Lab test · Gaming laptop CPU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is one of the strongest laptop chips available, but it trails the Core i7-12700H in heavy tasks because AMD caps its power draw.
N
notebookcheck.it
27/04/2023
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 7 6800H vs. Ryzen 7 7735HS: Don't Lose Your Mind Over the Rebrand
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
02/11/2022
Summary of the review
The Ryzen 9 6900HX is a waste of money compared to the Ryzen 7 6800H and the benchmarks prove it
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
17/02/2022
Summary of the review
The First AMD Ryzen 6000 Benchmarks: All About Zen 3+ and the Platform
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
02/06/2023
Summary of the review
ASUS TUF Gaming A15 FA507NV-LP031W Review
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 7 6800H

  • Integrated AMD Radeon 680M graphics offer exceptional performance for an iGPU, capable of handling many modern games at 1080p
  • High energy efficiency compared to Intel's 12th-generation rivals, particularly at lower power limits (35W–45W)
  • Strong multi-core performance makes it highly effective for content creation, 3D rendering, and multitasking
  • Superior battery life in laptops compared to similar high-performance Intel configurations
  • Modern feature set including support for DDR5 memory, PCIe 4.0, and USB4

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 6800H

  • Single-core and high-power multi-core performance often trail behind the Intel Core i7-12700H
  • Tendency to reach high temperatures (up to 90-95°C) under sustained heavy loads, which can trigger thermal throttling
  • Incremental CPU performance gains (roughly 10%) over the previous generation Ryzen 7 5800H
  • Limited availability in laptops compared to the wider range of Intel-based models
  • Performance in specific professional software (e.g., Adobe Photoshop and Premiere) often lags behind Intel-optimized equivalents

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is a high-performance mobile processor based on the Zen 3+ architecture and a 6nm manufacturing process. It features 8 cores and 16 threads with a 3.2GHz base clock and a boost frequency up to 4.7GHz, supported by 16MB of L3 cache and a 45W default TDP. Main characteristics include the integrated Radeon 680M GPU with RDNA2 architecture and support for modern standards like DDR5-4800 memory, PCIe 4.0, and USB4. Its primary pros are excellent energy efficiency, strong multi-core performance for content creation, and one of the fastest integrated graphics in its class, capable of handling casual 1080p gaming. However, its cons include minor generational performance gains over its predecessor and a tendency to run hot, often requiring aggressive cooling solutions to avoid thermal throttling at high power loads.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 6800H 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 6800H and other processors

No results found