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 9 4900H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark multi-core score:18832N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.4 GHzCPU socket:FP6TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

AMD Ryzen 9 4900H Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 5 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components

40%

6.2

Technical score

25%

8.1

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

▲Better than 62% of processors
7.9

Value for money

Value for money
7.9/ 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 81% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

▲Better than 81%
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 56% of models
Score components

60%

6.2

Performance

18%

5.6

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 56%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 78% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 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.
▲Better than 78%
?

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~ £110
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 9 4900H

Based on 1 · 4

Reviewers agree performance is excellent, but battery life, heat and fan noise under load are the main drawbacks.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 9 4900H

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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 56% of models
Score components:

60%

6.2

Performance

18%

5.6

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

6.2
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.9/ 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 81% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.9
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 3.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.3 GHz which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
18,832
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 18,832 in PassMark, which is higher than 66.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 70.4% of processors and equal to that of 10.5% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 55.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
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/LPDDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4, which is newer than that of 58.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,266 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,266 MHz, which is higher than that of 59.6% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-4266 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-4266 MHz, which is higher than that of 57.2% of processors and equal to 2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
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
VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 73.9% of processors and equal to 3.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
?
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 4,000 W
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 9 4900H 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
  • 64.2% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,832 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,832 vs 11,469
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 53.9% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (4,315 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    4,315 vs 2,804.5
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 78% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 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.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 78% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 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.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • 8.9% better value for money
    AMD Ryzen 9 4900H has better value for money than the average processor (7.93 vs 7.3).
    7.93 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 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
  • 64.2% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,832 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,832 vs 11,469
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 53.9% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (4,315 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    4,315 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • 29.8% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,759 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,759 vs 5,209
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 33.3% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (512 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    512 KB vs 384 KB
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 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
  • 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
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (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)).
    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)
  • 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME, SEV 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
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (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)).
    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

7.0
MOBHouse
✓ explicit
28/09/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks and thermals
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 4900H offers good hardware and build quality for the price, but the screen is weak and it runs hot under load.
9.0
WhatNow?
≈ estimated
05/08/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming and battery tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 4900H is a strong gaming laptop, held back by build quality, the screen and thermals under combined load.
8.0
PC Tech & Gaming
≈ estimated
26/06/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks, heat and screen tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 4900H offers strong hardware for the money, but the screen and heat hold it back for pros and esports players.
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
30/03/2020
Laptop review · 14-inch gaming
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 4900H in the Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 offers strong multi-core speed, but its 1 TB SSD drops to hard-drive speed on large copies.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 9 4900H

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance, often outperforming competing high-end Intel mobile chips in rendering and encoding
  • High energy efficiency due to the 7nm Zen 2 architecture, offering more performance per watt
  • Strong integrated Radeon Vega graphics that can handle light gaming and some creative tasks without a discrete GPU
  • Excellent value for money compared to similar high-performance mobile processors
  • Improved single-thread performance over previous Ryzen mobile generations

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 9 4900H

  • Higher memory latency compared to Intel's contemporary mobile offerings, which can impact specific CPU-bound gaming scenarios
  • Performance is highly dependent on individual laptop cooling solutions and OEM-set power limits (TDP)
  • Lacks support for USB4 or Thunderbolt 3, limiting high-speed external peripheral and eGPU options
  • Performance consistency can vary significantly across different laptop models and real-world conditions
  • Heavy reliance on high-speed RAM to achieve peak performance levels

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 9 4900H is a high-end mobile processor based on the 7nm Zen 2 'Renoir' architecture, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads with a 3.3 GHz base clock and up to a 4.4 GHz boost. Designed for high-performance gaming and creator laptops, it includes an integrated Radeon RX Vega 8 GPU with 8 compute units clocked at 1750 MHz and supports up to 64GB of DDR4-3200 or LPDDR4-4266 memory. Its main advantages are exceptional multi-threaded performance for its 45W TDP and efficient power management that rivals contemporary desktop CPUs. However, it lacks an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, is limited to PCIe 3.0, and can experience inconsistent performance if laptop thermal solutions are inadequate.

Compare AMD Ryzen 9 4900H 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 9 4900H and other processors

No results found