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 AI 5 430 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,470PassMark multi-core score:12947N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:FP8TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.8/10

Overall score

Score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User 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 52% of models
Score components

40%

6.4

Technical score

25%

6.4

Reviews score

15%

?

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

10%

?

User scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 8.4, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 52% of processors
5.6

Value for money

Value for money
5.6/ 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%

6.8

Overall score

30%

2.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
6.4

Technical score

Technical score
6.4/ 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 59% of models
Score components

60%

5.9

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.8

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 59%
6.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.4/ 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–¼ Worse than 66% of models

6.4

Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
â–¼Worse than 66%
?

User score

User score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
No ratings from across the web yet, so it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
No ratings from across the web yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Best prices
    N/A~ £1,470
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 AI 5 430

Technical score
Technical score
6.4/ 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 59% of models
Score components:

60%

5.9

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.8

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

6.4
Reviews score
6.4
User score
?
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.6/ 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%

6.8

Overall score

30%

2.7

Price

5.6
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
FP8
This processor uses the FP8 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 49.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% 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
?
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 53.9% of processors and equal to that of 5.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
1x 2.0 GHz & 3x 2.0 GHz
PassMark multi-core score
12,947
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 12,947 in PassMark, which is higher than 52.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.7% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 7.8% of processors.
L3 cache
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
320 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 320 KB which is smaller than that of 56.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR DDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
8,000 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 8,000 MHz, which is higher than that of 95.9% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8000 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-8000 MHz, which is higher than that of 96.4% of processors and equal to 1.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 840M
This processor uses the Radeon 840M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 97.1% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
4
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 4 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 90.1% of processors and equal to 2.8% 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
?
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.9% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to that of 7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
28 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 28 W which is lower than that of 83.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 62.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,499 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,499 vs 1,535
  • 40.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,594 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,594 vs 2,558
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.5x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8000 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    8,000 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • 48.5% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (7,735 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    7,735 vs 5,209
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 6 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2026 vs 2020).
    2026 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 62.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,499 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,499 vs 1,535
  • 40.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,594 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,594 vs 2,558
  • 48.5% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (7,735 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    7,735 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 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
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.5x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8000 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    8,000 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-8000 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-8000 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 840M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 840M 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
  • 56.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    28 W vs 64 W
  • 37.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gorgon Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Gorgon Point vs Kaby Lake
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (1x2 GHz & 3x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    1x2.0 GHz & 3x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 3 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (1 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    1 vs 4
  • 5.88x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 is more expensive than the average processor (£1,470 vs £250).
    £1,470 vs £250
  • 30.6% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.61 vs 7.3).
    5.61 vs 7.33
  • 2 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (14 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    14 vs 16
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24
  • 5.88x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 is more expensive than the average processor (£1,470 vs £250).
    £1,470 vs £250
  • 30.6% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.61 vs 7.3).
    5.61 vs 7.33
  • 4.5% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.4/ 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–¼ Worse than 66% of models

    6.4

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    6.4 vs 6.7
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (1x2 GHz & 3x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    1x2.0 GHz & 3x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 3 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (1 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    1 vs 4
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    20 vs 28
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gorgon Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Gorgon Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (14 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    14 vs 16
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.1
notebookcheck.net
✓ explicit
14/04/2026
Lab benchmarks · Budget convertible
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 suits budget buyers who want an OLED convertible, but it trails Intel's Core Ultra 5 325 in multi-core tests.

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen AI 5 430

  • Four cores and eight threads cover everyday work and light multitasking.
  • A Geekbench single-core score of 2499 keeps single tasks responsive.
  • Boost power of 28 W keeps power draw modest.
  • Memory runs at 8000 MHz with up to 256 GB supported.
  • A mixed layout puts one performance core beside three efficiency cores.
  • The 4 nm process keeps the chip efficient.

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen AI 5 430

  • Only one performance core limits fast work on heavy jobs.
  • Four graphics units leave little room for games.
  • It has no Turbo Boost, which many chips include.
  • Only 14 PCIe lanes leave less room for extra storage or add-in cards.
  • The multiplier is locked, so the chip cannot be overclocked.

Verdict

Light multitasking suits the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430, which has four cores and eight threads. Its single-core score of 3594 and Geekbench single-core score of 2499 show it is quick on one task at a time. The 4 nm process keeps the chip efficient, and boost power peaks at only 28 W. Memory is strong too, with DDR5 at 8000 MHz and room for up to 256 GB. The trade-off is the layout, since it has just one performance core and only four graphics units. It also has no Turbo Boost, which many chips include. Light tasks feel quick but heavy gaming is out of reach. It suits a buyer who wants quick everyday work and does not need a strong graphics chip for games.

Compare AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 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 AI 5 430 and other processors

No results found