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 9 9955HX Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£740PassMark benchmark result:55701N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:5.4 GHzCPU socket:FL1TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

9.2

Overall score

Score
9.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

90%

9.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

★Better than 99% of processors
9.2

Technical score

Technical score
9.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

60%

9.7

Performance

18%

8.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated Graphics

★Better than 99% 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £740

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 9 9955HX

Technical score
Technical score
9.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 100% of models
Score components:

60%

9.7

Performance

18%

8.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated Graphics

9.2
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX 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
8.4/ 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
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components:

60%

9.2

Overall score

40%

6.6

Price

8.4
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ 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
FL1
CPU socket
FL1
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor uses the FL1 CPU socket, which is older than that of 61.7% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² 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
16
N. of physical cores
16
★ Better than 91% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 91.5% of processors and equal to 4% of processors.
CPU threads
32
CPU threads
32
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 32 CPU threads, which is more than 95% of processors and equal to 3% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–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
5.4 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
5.4 GHz
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.4 GHz which is higher than that of 95% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
16x 2.5 GHz
CPU base clock speed
16x 2.5 GHz
★ Better than 92% of models
This processor has a base clock of 16x2.5 GHz which is higher than that of 92% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Semiconductor size
4 nm
â–² Better than 88% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 88.5% of processors and equal to that of 7.4% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
â–² Better than 87% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 87% of processors and equal to that of 7.5% of processors.
L3 cache
64 MB
L3 cache
64 MB
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 64 MB which is larger than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L2 cache
16 MB
L2 cache
16 MB
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 89.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
L1 cache
1,280 KB
L1 cache
1,280 KB
★ Better than 92% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,280 KB which is larger than that of 92.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
DDR memory version
DDR5
â–² 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
5,600 MHz
Maximum memory speed
5,600 MHz
â–² Better than 80% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,600 MHz, which is higher than that of 79.8% of processors and equal to 4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5600 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5600 MHz
â–² Better than 79% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5600 MHz, which is higher than that of 78.8% of processors and equal to 5.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
â–² Better than 56% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 96 GB of memory, which is more than 56% of processors and equal to 5.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 610M
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 610M
â–² Better than 89% of models
This processor uses the Radeon 610M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 89.3% of processors and equal to that in 1.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Integrated GPU execution units
2
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.7% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
â–² 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
AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 63.1% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 63.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Base power (PL1)
55 W
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 64% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 55-75 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.27x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    55,701
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (55,701 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    55,701 vs 10,572.5
  • 4.05x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    19,563
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (19,563 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    19,563 vs 4,829
  • 10 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    16
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 2.19x higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    3,219
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,219 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,219 vs 1,471
  • 5.38x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    15,015
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (15,015 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    15,015 vs 2,791
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Fire Range
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Fire Range vs Kaby Lake).
    Fire Range vs Kaby Lake
  • 75.3% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,382
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,382 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,382 vs 2,500
  • 24 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    32
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • 28.2% better value for money
    AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX has better value for money than the average processor (8.41 vs 6.6).
    8.41 vs 6.56
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, Pluton
    â–² Better than 86% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, 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).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, 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
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • 5.27x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    55,701
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (55,701 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    55,701 vs 10,572.5
  • 4.05x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    19,563
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (19,563 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    19,563 vs 4,829
  • 10 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    16
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 2.19x higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    3,219
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,219 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,219 vs 1,471
  • 5.38x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    15,015
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (15,015 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    15,015 vs 2,791
  • 75.3% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,382
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,382 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,382 vs 2,500
  • 24 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    32
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • 25.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.4 GHz
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 68.9% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    826
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (826 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    826 vs 489
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    16 x 2.5 GHz
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (16x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    16x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    Unlocked multiplier
    yes
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
  • 4 wider front-end design
    Front-end width
    8
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2 – >7
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    8 vs 4
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Precision Boost 2
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Fire Range
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Fire Range vs Kaby Lake).
    Fire Range vs Kaby Lake
  • 6.4x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    16 MB
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    16 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 8x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    64 MB
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (64 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    64 MB vs 8 MB
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    4 nm
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 2.33x more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    4 MB/core
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (4 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    4 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 3.33x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    1,280 KB
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1280 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,280 KB vs 384 KB
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 4 nm
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    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
  • 2x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • 3.36x more transistors
    N. of transistors
    16.63 billion
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (16.6 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    16.63 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    28
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 95.6% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    89.6 GB/s
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (89.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 90.9% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    5,600 MHz
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5600 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    5,600 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR5
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR5-5600 MHz
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 50% more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    96 GB
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (96 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    96 GB vs 64 GB
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon 610M
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 610M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 610M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² 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
  • 48.6% larger die size
    Die size
    263 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (263 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    263 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 2.96x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX is more expensive than the average processor (£740 vs £250).
    £740 vs £250
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24
  • 22.2% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    55 W
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ 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
  • 22.2% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    55 W
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 2.96x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX is more expensive than the average processor (£740 vs £250).
    £740 vs £250
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ 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
  • 48.6% larger die size
    Die size
    263 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (263 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    263 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24
  • 22.2% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    55 W
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 22.2% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    55 W
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
28/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX - CPU Benchmarks Would you like a comparison table of these benchmark results against its 3D V-Cache sibling, the 9955HX3D?
T
techradar.com
17/08/2025
Summary of the review
Chuwi GameBook 9955HX creator laptop review
C
computerbase.de
28/03/2025
Summary of the review
AMD vs. Intel in the XMG Neo 16: Benchmarks and Final Verdict
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
21/07/2025
Summary of the review
Minisforum MS-A2 with Ryzen 9 9955HX: Review highlights strengths and weaknesses of the mini workstation
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
28/03/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX and Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Benchmarked
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.biz
21/01/2026
Summary of the review
XMG Apex 16 Max Review: Ryzen 9 9955HX, RTX 5070 Ti, and Mini-LED for this gaming laptop
(Translated)Show original
C
cpubenchmark.net
01/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX - CPU Performance Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
25/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX | LaptopMedia Italy
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance, often beating desktop-class CPUs in rendering and heavy computational tasks
  • Top-tier single-core performance, making it a powerful choice for high-end gaming and single-threaded apps
  • Efficient modern architecture (Zen 5 on 4nm) that delivers more power per watt than previous generations
  • Features 16 full performance cores, which is highly beneficial for software that cannot utilize 'efficiency' cores
  • Support for cutting-edge standards like PCIe 5.0 and high-speed DDR5-5600 RAM
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for easy overclocking and performance tuning

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX

  • Poor battery life, with high idle power draw that prevents the CPU from entering deep sleep states
  • Significant heat generation under load, often requiring aggressive fan curves and noisy cooling systems
  • High cost, with laptops featuring this processor typically starting at premium price points ($2500+)
  • Performance drops significantly when running on battery compared to being plugged in
  • Lacks the massive L3 cache of the '3D' variant, which some users feel makes the standard HX a lesser value for pure gaming

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX is a high-end mobile processor from the 'Fire Range' series, built on the Zen 5 architecture and a 4nm TSMC process. It features 16 cores and 32 threads with a base clock of 2.5 GHz and a max boost clock of 5.4 GHz, supported by 64 MB of L3 cache and a default TDP of 55W (configurable up to 75W). Its primary advantages include exceptional multi-threaded performance for heavy workloads like rendering and music production, PCIe 5.0 support, and high energy efficiency for its performance class. However, potential drawbacks include high power draw under full load that requires substantial cooling solutions, a lack of the specialized 3D V-Cache found in its 'HX3D' sibling for peak gaming gains, and relatively high idle power consumption compared to more portable, monolithic laptop chips.

Compare AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX 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 9955HX and other processors

No results found