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 PRO 8700G review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark multi-core score:31133N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.1 GHzCPU socket:AM5TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8700G Review: Compare 168 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.7/10

Overall score

Score
7.7/ 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 84% of models
Score components

45%

8.2

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

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 84% of processors
8.1

Value for money

Value for money
8.1/ 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
★ Better than 90% of models
Score components

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

★Better than 90%
8.2

Technical score

Technical score
8.2/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 89% of models
Score components

60%

8.4

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

8.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 89%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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~ £260
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 PRO 8700G

Technical score
Technical score
8.2/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 89% of models
Score components:

60%

8.4

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

8.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

8.2
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
8.1/ 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
★ Better than 90% of models
Score components:

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

8.1
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM5
This processor uses the AM5 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 95% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Chipset
X870E, X870, B850, B840, X670E, X670, B650E, B650, A620
This processor supports X870E, X870, B850, B840, X670E, X670, B650E, B650, A620 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 92% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
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, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% 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
5.1 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.1 GHz which is higher than that of 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 4.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x4.2 GHz which is higher than that of 88% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
31,133
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 31,133 in PassMark, which is higher than 87% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.7% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 7.8% 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
8 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 72% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% 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
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.6% of processors and equal to 6.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5200 MHz, which is higher than that of 71% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 780M
This processor uses the Radeon 780M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 95.2% of processors and equal to that in 1.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
2,900 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 2,900 MHz which is higher than that of 100% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% 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 PRO 8700G vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.71x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,133 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,133 vs 11,469
  • 2.6x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,533 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,533 vs 5,209
  • 54.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,952 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,952 vs 2,558
  • 2.52x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (7,061 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    7,061 vs 2,804.5
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Phoenix vs Kaby Lake).
    Phoenix vs Kaby Lake
  • 72.3% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,645 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,645 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 15.9% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 12.9% better value for money
    AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8700G has better value for money than the average processor (8.13 vs 7.2).
    8.13 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM5 vs FP5).
    AM5 vs FP5
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    January 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA vs AES, SHA
  • 2.71x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,133 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,133 vs 11,469
  • 2.6x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,533 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,533 vs 5,209
  • 54.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,952 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,952 vs 2,558
  • 2.52x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (7,061 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    7,061 vs 2,804.5
  • 72.3% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,645 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,645 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 15.9% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x4.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x4.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 14 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (42 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    42 vs 28
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Phoenix vs Kaby Lake).
    Phoenix vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    4 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    8 MB vs 3 MB
  • 5.13x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (25.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    25.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 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
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 77.4% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (83.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    83.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    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
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 62.5% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5200 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 780M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 780M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 8.29x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (2900 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    2,900 MHz vs 350 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
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    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
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower media codec support
    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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 21.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (314 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    314 vs 398.015
  • 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
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, GMET 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
  • 21.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (314 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    314 vs 398.015
  • Narrower media codec support
    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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (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% fewer GPU execution units
    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
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8700G

  • Exceptional integrated graphics performance (Radeon 780M) capable of 1080p gaming on many AAA titles without a discrete GPU.
  • Very high energy efficiency with low idle and load power consumption (65W TDP).
  • Includes a dedicated Neural Processing Unit (NPU) for local AI acceleration tasks.
  • Comes bundled with a functional Wraith Spire cooler, adding value for budget builds.
  • Strong single-core performance suitable for both gaming and general productivity.
  • Excellent solution for Small Form Factor (SFF) or Mini-PC builds where a dedicated GPU cannot fit.

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8700G

  • High total platform cost due to the requirement for more expensive DDR5 RAM and AM5 motherboards.
  • Reduced L3 cache (16MB vs 32MB on standard 7000 series) which can hamper performance in cache-sensitive applications and games.
  • Limited PCIe connectivity with only 16 available PCIe 4.0 lanes, potentially bottlenecking future high-end GPU or SSD upgrades.
  • Lower value proposition compared to a similarly priced budget CPU and discrete GPU combo (e.g., Intel i5 + budget Arc/GTX card).
  • Early stability and BIOS compatibility issues reported on some motherboard platforms at launch.
  • Heavily dependent on high-speed (and more expensive) RAM to achieve advertised graphical performance.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8700G is a high-performance desktop APU built on the 4nm Zen 4 architecture, featuring 8 cores, 16 threads, and clock speeds ranging from a 4.2 GHz base to a 5.1 GHz boost. It is distinguished by its powerful integrated Radeon 780M graphics (12 compute units at 2900 MHz) and a dedicated Ryzen AI NPU delivering up to 16 TOPS of performance. Main pros include exceptional 1080p gaming capabilities without a discrete GPU, high energy efficiency with a 65W TDP, and support for enterprise-grade security via AMD PRO technologies. However, it suffers from a reduced 16MB L3 cache compared to standard Ryzen 7000 series chips, is limited to PCIe 4.0 connectivity, and its value can be undermined by the high cost of required high-speed DDR5 RAM.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8700G 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 PRO 8700G and other processors

No results found