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 4900HS review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,720PassMark multi-core score:18772N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:FP6TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 18 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 65% of models
Score components

40%

6.0

Technical score

25%

8.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 65% of processors
5.4

Value for money

Value for money
5.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

1.4

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
6.0

Technical score

Technical score
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 53% of models
Score components

60%

6.0

Performance

18%

5.6

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.4

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 53%
8.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 97% of models

80%

8.6

Average grade

20%

9.1

Popularity

Grades by review (18)
12 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 6 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 97%
?

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~ £1,720
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 4900HS

Based on 7 · 7

Reviewers praise its strong CPU, sharp display and sleek build, but find gaming performance underwhelming and ports lacking.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS

Technical score
Technical score
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 53% of models
Score components:

60%

6.0

Performance

18%

5.6

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.4

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

6.0
Reviews score
8.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

1.4

Price

5.4
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
4.3 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.3 GHz which is lower than that of 51.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3 GHz & 8x 3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3 GHz & 8x3 GHz which is higher than that of 94.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
18,772
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 18,772 in PassMark, which is higher than 66.3% 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
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% 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)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS 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
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3 GHz & 8x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3 GHz & 8x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 63.7% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,772 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,772 vs 11,469
  • 29.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 97% of models

    80%

    8.6

    Average grade

    20%

    9.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (18)
    12 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 6 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.
    8.7 vs 6.7
  • 53.9% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (4,317 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    4,317 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • 29.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 97% of models

    80%

    8.6

    Average grade

    20%

    9.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (18)
    12 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 6 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.
    8.7 vs 6.7
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3 GHz & 8x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3 GHz & 8x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 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
  • 63.7% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,772 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,772 vs 11,469
  • 53.9% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (4,317 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    4,317 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
  • 22.4% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,375 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,375 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
  • 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
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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
  • 73.6% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (105 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    105 vs 398.015
  • 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)
  • 6.88x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is more expensive than the average processor (£1,720 vs £250).
    £1,720 vs £250
  • 34.3% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS has worse value for money than the average processor (5.42 vs 7.3).
    5.42 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • 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
  • 6.88x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is more expensive than the average processor (£1,720 vs £250).
    £1,720 vs £250
  • 34.3% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS has worse value for money than the average processor (5.42 vs 7.3).
    5.42 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • 73.6% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (105 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    105 vs 398.015
  • 2.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 5.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,451 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,451 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

9.5
TechteamGB
≈ estimated
01/06/2020
Hands-on review · performance, display and battery tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is a very strong performer with few drawbacks, and both performance and build get high marks.
9.5
TheTanelChannel
✓ explicit
18/05/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks, battery and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS powers a well-thought-out laptop that handles nearly any task with great performance, despite a few small annoyances.
9.5
Tally Ho Tech
≈ estimated
11/05/2020
Hands-on review · gaming, thermal and power tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS powers an excellent gaming laptop for its size, with only minor drawbacks such as the lack of Thunderbolt.
9.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
30/03/2020
Hands-on review · performance, battery and build tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS offers impressive CPU performance in a small chassis, with a few compromises for those who need raw power.
9.5
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
30/03/2020
Hands-on review · performance, build, display and extras
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS powers a strong do-it-all compact laptop with few compromises, despite some hardware quirks.
9.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
15/04/2020
Comparison · benchmarks, power draw and temperatures
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is much more efficient than the Intel rival, with performance that is close overall.
Shop video
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.5
techspot.com
≈ estimated
30/03/2020
Hands-on test · Laptop chip benchmarks
Verdict
The Ryzen 9 4900HS is the best laptop chip for heavy multi-core work at lower power, though Intel keeps the lead in Excel, Photoshop and Matlab.
9.0
techspot.com
≈ estimated
08/04/2020
Benchmark analysis · Gaming laptop
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is the faster gaming CPU when the graphics card is not the bottleneck, but its weaker RTX 2060 Max-Q slows GPU-heavy games.
8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
03/04/2020
Benchmark test · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS's built-in graphics beat the Ryzen 5 3400G by up to 18% on a 35 W chip, but 512 MB of video memory holds it back.
9.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
30/03/2020
Hands-on test · Laptop build and chip
Verdict
The Ryzen 9 4900HS in the Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 offers Ryzen 7 2700X-level speed at much lower power, with a thin 1.6 kg body and a few small flaws.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
≈ estimated
05/06/2020
Laptop lab test · Intel comparison
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 4900H beats Intel's 8-core Core i7 in this test by holding higher speeds under load, but its power draw is still untested.
7.0
madboxpc.com
≈ estimated
14/04/2020
Lab test · Gaming laptop
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS beats Intel's 45W laptop chip in rendering while drawing less power, though the CPU runs hot under heavy load.
9.0
todomovil.net
≈ estimated
Not Dated
Hands-on test · Gaming laptop
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is AMD's strongest laptop chip, an eight-core 35W design for gaming and heavy work, though its speed gains are, so far, only AMD's claims.
8.0
xataka.com.mx
≈ estimated
30/03/2020
Hands-on test · Gaming laptop
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS in the ROG Zephyrus G14 plays most games well, but the laptop runs hot and loud with a short battery.
9.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
16/04/2020
Lab test · Gaming laptop
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is a strong laptop chip for rendering and heavy work, though Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Metro Exodus need lower settings to hit 60fps.
9.0
tweakers.net
≈ estimated
30/03/2020
Benchmark test · Laptop processor
Verdict
The Ryzen 9 4900HS in the Asus Zephyrus G14 is a strong 35-watt laptop chip, nearly doubling the Core i7-9750H in Cinebench 20 multi-core but slowing under long loads.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance, often outperforming much higher TDP desktop-class processors in tasks like video encoding and 3D rendering.
  • Highly efficient 7nm Zen 2 architecture, delivering high performance with a relatively low 35W TDP, which aids in better battery life for portable devices.
  • Strong single-core performance that remains competitive with Intel's high-end mobile offerings of its generation.
  • Powerful integrated Radeon Vega graphics that outperform standard Intel integrated solutions, capable of handling light gaming and creative tasks.
  • Enables powerful performance in slim, ultraportable 14-inch laptop form factors that were previously limited to quad-core chips.

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

  • Significant thermal output under heavy sustained loads, often causing compact laptop chassis to run very hot.
  • Noticeable fan noise in most implementations as cooling systems work hard to manage the high performance in small frames.
  • Higher memory latency compared to contemporary Intel competitors, which can impact performance in specific CPU-bottlenecked gaming scenarios.
  • Locked multiplier prevents manual overclocking, limiting the potential for enthusiasts to push the chip further.
  • Performance is heavily dependent on the specific laptop's cooling solution, leading to varying results across different device models.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is a high-performance 7nm mobile processor from the Renoir (Zen 2) architecture, featuring 8 cores, 16 threads, and a base clock speed of 3.0 GHz that boosts up to 4.3 GHz. Designed for slim and light gaming laptops, it operates at a power-efficient 35W TDP and includes integrated Radeon RX Vega 8 graphics with a 1750 MHz boost clock, supported by an 8 MB L3 cache and support for DDR4-3200 or LPDDR4-4266 memory. Its primary pros include exceptional multi-threaded performance that frequently outclasses 45W Intel competitors, superior power efficiency for its class, and strong integrated graphics that surpass Intel's standard UHD offerings. However, it lacks an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, trails some Intel rivals in specific single-threaded Adobe applications due to smaller cache and memory latency, and its performance can be significantly limited by the cooling solutions of thinner laptop chassis.

Compare AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS 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 4900HS and other processors

No results found