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 7735HS Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£480PassMark benchmark result:22505N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.75 GHzCPU socket:FP7TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS 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 69% of models
Score components

90%

7.0

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▲Better than 69% 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%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.6

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~ £480

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 7735HS

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%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.6

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 7735HS 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
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

7.0

Overall score

40%

8.0

Price

7.3
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
4.75 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.75 GHz
▲ Better than 71% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.75 GHz which is higher than that of 70.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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
4,800 MHz
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 66.7% of processors and equal to 5.5% 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.
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
400 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
▲ Better than 69% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.7% of processors and equal to that of 7.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.265 (HW encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.265 (HW encode)
▼ Worse than 74% of models
This processor supports H.265 (HW encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 74.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
▲ Better than 52% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 51.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
?
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 7735HS vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.13x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    22,505
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (22,505 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    22,505 vs 10,572.5
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Rembrandt R
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Rembrandt R vs Kaby Lake).
    Rembrandt R vs Kaby Lake
  • 81.8% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    8,779
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,779 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,779 vs 4,829
  • 94.2% better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    5,420
    ▲ Better than 76% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,420 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,420 vs 2,791
  • 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
  • 30.2% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,254
    ▲ Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,254 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,254 vs 2,500
  • 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
  • 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
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV, SEV-ES
    ▲ Better than 69% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV, SEV-ES vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV, SEV-ES vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 3 years newer release date
    Release date
    2023
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    January 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • 2.13x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    22,505
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (22,505 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    22,505 vs 10,572.5
  • 81.8% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    8,779
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,779 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,779 vs 4,829
  • 94.2% better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    5,420
    ▲ Better than 76% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,420 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,420 vs 2,791
  • 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
  • 30.2% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,254
    ▲ Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,254 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,254 vs 2,500
  • 10.5% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.75 GHz
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.75 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 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
  • 28.9% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,896
    ▲ Better than 65% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,896 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,896 vs 1,471
  • 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
  • 23.5% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    604
    ▲ Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (604 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    604 vs 489
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Rembrandt R
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Rembrandt R vs Kaby Lake).
    Rembrandt R 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
  • 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.
  • 63.7% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    4,800 MHz
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4800 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 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
  • 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
    H.265 (HW encode)
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.265 (HW encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.265 (HW encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 18.6% larger die size
    Die size
    210 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (210 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    210 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 92% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS is more expensive than the average processor (£480 vs £250).
    £480 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
  • 92% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS is more expensive than the average processor (£480 vs £250).
    £480 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
  • 18.6% larger die size
    Die size
    210 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (210 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    210 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.265 (HW encode)
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.265 (HW encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.265 (HW encode) 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

8.0
Team Pandory
≈ estimated
24/11/2023
Gameplay benchmarks · 10 games at 1080p and 720p
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS handles most modern games well at 1080p, though some need lower settings.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded yet
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

L
laptopmedia.com
25/01/2023
Summary of the review
[Comparison] AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS vs Intel Core i7-12700H – Intel is winning, at least until Zen 4 gets here.
N
notebookcheck.net
08/09/2023
Summary of the review
Acer Nitro 17 Ryzen edition review: The QHD gaming laptop with an RTX 4070
C
cpubenchmark.net
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS - CPU Benchmarks
L
laptopmedia.com
28/01/2023
Summary of the review
[Comparison] AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS vs Intel Core i7-1280P – The Ryzen's got some fight left in it
N
notebookcheck.com
23/02/2024
Summary of the review
Aoostar GOD77 Review - Mini PC with Lighting Effects and AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
21/04/2023
Summary of the review
Asus TUF Gaming A16 with Radeon RX 7600S Review
(Translated)Show original
G
geekom.fr
04/01/2026
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 7 vs Intel i7: Best Mini PC Chip 2026
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
31/01/2023
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS vs Intel Core i7-11800H Comparison
(Translated)Show original
notebookcheck.biz
19/04/2023
Benchmark test · Thin laptop
Verdict
The Lenovo Slim 7 Pro with Ryzen 7 7735HS is a light laptop whose speed is close to last year's model, so the new chip name adds little.
L
laptopmedia.com
27/01/2023
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS vs AMD Ryzen 7 6800H Comparison: Wattage is King
(Translated)Show original
S
saggiamente.com
27/10/2023
Summary of the review
Beelink SER6 Max Review: The Mini PC with an iGPU for Gaming and Video Editing
(Translated)Show original
T
today.it
01/06/2023
Summary of the review
Beelink SER6 Pro 7735HS: Review, Specs, and Price
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
01/02/2023
Summary of the review
All our articles tagged AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
30/12/2022
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS vs Intel Core i5-12500H Comparison
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
01/02/2023
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS - Specifications and Benchmark Tests
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS

  • Strong multi-threaded performance for productivity and multitasking
  • Capable integrated Radeon 680M graphics, suitable for light gaming and eSports
  • Excellent value for money in mid-range laptops and mini PCs
  • Energy efficient compared to higher TDP desktop-class processors
  • Supports modern standards like DDR5/LPDDR5 memory and USB4
  • Generally quiet operation in well-designed cooling systems

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS

  • Can run quite hot under heavy load, reaching up to 95°C during boosts
  • Limited performance gains over the previous generation Ryzen 7 6800HS
  • Integrated graphics performance is heavily dependent on dual-channel RAM configuration
  • Not suitable for heavy 4K video editing or high-end 3D rendering without a dedicated GPU
  • Integrated GPU struggles with demanding modern AAA titles at 1080p

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS is a high-performance mobile processor based on the Zen 3+ 'Rembrandt-R' architecture, featuring 8 cores, 16 threads, and a 6nm manufacturing process. It operates at a base clock of 3.2 GHz with a maximum boost frequency of 4.75 GHz, supported by 16MB of L3 cache and a configurable TDP between 35W and 54W. Key advantages include its powerful integrated Radeon 680M graphics with 12 compute units, support for modern connectivity like PCIe 4.0 and DDR5-4800 or LPDDR5-6400 memory, and efficient multi-threaded performance for gaming and content creation. However, some drawbacks include its reliance on an older architecture compared to newer Zen 4 chips, which results in slightly lower single-core efficiency, and reports of high operating temperatures that can reach up to 95-100°C under heavy workloads.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS 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 7735HS and other processors

No results found