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 9955HX3D review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£2,320PassMark multi-core score:62508N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:5.4 GHzCPU socket:FL1TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 7 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D
8.4/10

Overall score

Score
8.4/ 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
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

40%

9.3

Technical score

25%

8.4

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 99% of processors
6.2

Value for money

Value for money
6.2/ 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 94% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 94%
9.3

Technical score

Technical score
9.3/ 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
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

60%

9.7

Performance

18%

9.1

Architecture

10%

8.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.8

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

★Better than 99%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 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
â–² Better than 89% of models

80%

8.4

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
1 review, with a printed score. 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.
â–²Better than 89%
?

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
  • amd-ryzen-9-9955hx3d
amd-ryzen-9-9955hx3d
Where to buy
    N/A~ £2,320
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 9955HX3D

Based on 1 · 7

Reviewers like its efficiency and strong gaming and CPU performance, but most feel it is overpriced for what it offers.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D

Technical score
Technical score
9.3/ 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
★ Better than 100% of models
Score components:

60%

9.7

Performance

18%

9.1

Architecture

10%

8.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.8

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

9.3
Reviews score
8.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 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 94% of models
Score components:

70%

8.4

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

6.2
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
FL1
This processor uses the FL1 CPU socket, which is older than that of 63.2% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Chipset
Z790, B760, Z690, B660, H610, HM670, WM690
This processor supports Z790, B760, Z690, B660, H610, HM670, WM690 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 85.8% 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, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 90% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
32
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 32 CPU threads, which is more than 94.9% of processors and equal to 3.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.4 GHz which is higher than that of 94.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
16x 2.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 16x2.5 GHz which is higher than that of 91.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
62,508
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 62,508 in PassMark, which is higher than 98.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
128 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 128 MB which is larger than that of 98% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
L2 cache
16 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
L1 cache
1,280 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,280 KB which is larger than that of 91.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% 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
5,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,600 MHz, which is higher than that of 77.9% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5600 MHz, which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
5,600 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 5,600 MHz, which is higher than that of 96.2% of processors and equal to 0.8% of processors.
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 96 GB of memory, which is more than 53.4% of processors and equal to 5.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 610M
This processor uses the Radeon 610M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 88.9% of processors and equal to that in 1.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.5% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.4% of processors and equal to that of 8.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 72.1% of processors and equal to 0.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% 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
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.45x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (62,508 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    62,508 vs 11,469
  • 3.88x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,216 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,216 vs 5,209
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Fire Range vs Kaby Lake).
    Fire Range vs Kaby Lake
  • 5.41x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (15,162 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    15,162 vs 2,804.5
  • 75.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,500 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,500 vs 2,558
  • 2.06x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,165 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,165 vs 1,535
  • 12 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (16 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    16 vs 4
  • 25.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 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
    â–² Better than 89% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    1 review, with a printed score. 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.
    8.4 vs 6.7
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • 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, 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, AMD-V).
    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, AMD-V
  • 5.45x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (62,508 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    62,508 vs 11,469
  • 3.88x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,216 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,216 vs 5,209
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 5.41x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (15,162 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    15,162 vs 2,804.5
  • 75.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,500 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,500 vs 2,558
  • 2.06x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,165 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,165 vs 1,535
  • 12 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (16 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    16 vs 4
  • 24 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • 22.7% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (16x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    16x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Fire Range vs Kaby Lake).
    Fire Range vs Kaby Lake
  • 14.22x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (128 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    128 MB vs 9 MB
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    16 MB vs 3 MB
  • 4.32x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Supports stacked cache
    This processor has stacked 3D cache, while the average processor does not. 1.1% of processors offer this.
  • 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
  • 3.33x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,280 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,280 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 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
  • 3.36x more transistors
    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
    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
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • 91% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 75% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 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 (DDR5-5600 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
    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
    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
    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
    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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Shadow Stack 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, Shadow Stack vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 9.28x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is more expensive than the average processor (£2,320 vs £250).
    £2,320 vs £250
  • 18.2% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D has worse value for money than the average processor (6.17 vs 7.3).
    6.17 vs 7.29
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 22.2% higher base power
    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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 9.28x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is more expensive than the average processor (£2,320 vs £250).
    £2,320 vs £250
  • 18.2% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D has worse value for money than the average processor (6.17 vs 7.3).
    6.17 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Shadow Stack 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, Shadow Stack 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
  • 48.6% larger die size
    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
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 22.2% higher base power
    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
    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

9.0
UFD Tech
≈ estimated
30/08/2025
Hands-on review · CPU and gaming benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is the world's fastest mobile gaming processor, though the laptop around it has clear weaknesses.
9.0
GizmoSlipTech
≈ estimated
10/08/2025
Side-by-side benchmark · 35+ game and system tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is clearly the best mobile chip for CPU-heavy games, though its price premium and limited supply are drawbacks.
8.0
Crimson Tech
≈ estimated
04/06/2025
Hands-on review · build, display, battery and thermals
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is a great desktop-class performer worth buying if you find a good deal, though it is poor for portability.
9.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
01/08/2025
Comparison · 30-game benchmarks, thermals and battery tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is worth its extra cost for gaming, with little gain in other workloads.
7.0
GizmoSlipTech
≈ estimated
20/06/2025
Comparison · 40+ game and system benchmarks, 1% lows
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is clearly faster in CPU-bound games, but Intel's cheaper chip is a valid choice for GPU-bound play.
9.0
TechVerse
≈ estimated
12/06/2025
Hands-on comparison · gaming tests against Intel Core Ultra 9
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is the strongest pick if gaming is your priority, though Intel leads on battery life and features.
8.0
GizmoSlipTech
≈ estimated
22/05/2025
Benchmark comparison · 1% lows and FPS in games
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D delivers smoother gaming, but the test data needs retesting after erroneous 1% low readings.
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Brand video
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
26/03/2025
Early benchmark preview · Gaming laptop CPU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is the fastest laptop chip tested for multi-core rendering, but its gaming results are still to come.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D

  • World-class mobile gaming performance, particularly in CPU-intensive titles like Escape from Tarkov and simulation games.
  • Massive 128 MB L3 cache significantly improves 1% low frame rates and overall gaming smoothness.
  • Strong multi-threaded performance (16 cores/32 threads) makes it a top-tier choice for heavy productivity like video editing and coding.
  • Improved thermal design with 2nd Gen 3D V-Cache (stacked below the die) allows for better cooling compared to previous generations.
  • Highly efficient Zen 5 architecture provides a significant performance-per-watt lead over many competitors.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D

  • High platform cost; laptops equipped with this chip are typically flagship models (e.g., MSI Raider A18HX) and very expensive.
  • Higher idle power consumption compared to some Intel alternatives can impact battery life during light tasks.
  • Performance benefits of the 3D V-Cache are mostly limited to gaming and specific cache-sensitive workloads, showing little gain in standard office apps.
  • Limited availability, often restricted to large 16-inch or 18-inch 'desktop replacement' laptops due to high cooling requirements.
  • Potential for GPU bottlenecks; unless paired with top-tier graphics like an RTX 5080 or 5090, the CPU's full potential may not be realized.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is a flagship mobile processor from the 'Fire Range' series, built on the Zen 5 architecture and a 4nm process. It features 16 cores, 32 threads, and a massive 128 MB of L3 cache—enabled by 64 MB of stacked 3D V-Cache—with clock speeds ranging from a 2.5 GHz base to a 5.4 GHz boost. Its primary advantages include market-leading mobile gaming performance and exceptional responsiveness in cache-sensitive applications, supported by PCIe 5.0 and a configurable TDP of 55W to 75W. However, its downsides include a high price point for premium laptops, limited availability compared to standard models, and potential battery life trade-offs when compared to less power-hungry competitors.

Compare AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D 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 9955HX3D and other processors

No results found