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 7 350 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,010PassMark multi-core score:25004N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:FP8TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 6 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen AI 7 350
7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components

40%

8.1

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

25%

8.0

List score

10%

?

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

★Better than 92% of processors
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

5.2

Price

▼Worse than 66%
8.1

Technical score

Technical score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 88% of models
Score components

60%

8.3

Performance

18%

7.7

Architecture

10%

7.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.9

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 88%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 66% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
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 66%
8.0

List score

List score
8.0/ 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 (1)
List score: in 1 of 78 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • amd-ryzen-ai-7-350
amd-ryzen-ai-7-350
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,010
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 AI 7 350

Based on 0 · 6

Reviewers agree it handles everyday tasks smoothly, with no real complaints raised so far.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen AI 7 350

Technical score
Technical score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 88% of models
Score components:

60%

8.3

Performance

18%

7.7

Architecture

10%

7.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.9

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

8.1
Reviews score
7.9
List score
8.0
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

5.2

Price

7.1
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
X670E, B650
This processor supports X670E, B650 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 89.8% 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, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% 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
5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5 GHz which is higher than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz & 4x 2.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz & 4x2.0 GHz which is higher than that of 55.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
25,004
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 25,004 in PassMark, which is higher than 79.6% 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
16 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
L2 cache
8 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 72% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
L1 cache
640 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 640 KB which is larger than that of 73.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
?
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)
N/A
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 860M
This processor uses the Radeon 860M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 97.3% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% 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
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
AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 59.6% of processors and equal to 1.5% of processors.
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)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 15-54 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Krackan Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Krackan Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 5.68x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (15,938 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    15,938 vs 2,804.5
  • 90.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,926 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,926 vs 1,535
  • 2.18x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,004 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    25,004 vs 11,469
  • 2.16x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,262 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,262 vs 5,209
  • 51% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,862 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,862 vs 2,558
  • 3.97x higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (1945 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    1,945 vs 490
  • 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
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 66% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    February 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 5.68x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (15,938 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    15,938 vs 2,804.5
  • 90.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,926 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,926 vs 1,535
  • 2.18x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,004 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    25,004 vs 11,469
  • 2.16x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,262 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,262 vs 5,209
  • 51% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,862 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,862 vs 2,558
  • 3.97x higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (1945 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    1,945 vs 490
  • 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
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz & 4x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz & 4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Krackan Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Krackan Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 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.
    Zen 5 + Zen 5c cores
  • 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
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    8 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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
  • 66.7% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (640 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    640 KB vs 384 KB
  • 77.8% larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    16 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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
  • 2.5x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8,000 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 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 vs 3
  • 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 860M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 860M 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
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (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)).
    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)
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 4.04x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 is more expensive than the average processor (£1,010 vs £250).
    £1,010 vs £250
  • 10.2% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (195 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    195 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 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
  • 2.7% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 has worse value for money than the average processor (7.1 vs 7.3).
    7.1 vs 7.29
  • 4.04x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 is more expensive than the average processor (£1,010 vs £250).
    £1,010 vs £250
  • 2.7% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 has worse value for money than the average processor (7.1 vs 7.3).
    7.1 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
  • 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
  • 10.2% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (195 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    195 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (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)).
    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)
  • 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

Video reviews

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

9.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
17/03/2025
Hands-on review · gaming and power tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 is strong for a small board and works best at power limits around 45 watts.
8.0
Asserta Tech
≈ estimated
30/01/2026
Benchmark test · Cinebench 2026 multi-core run
Verdict
AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 performs very well in a multi-core Cinebench run, ranking sixth among rival laptop chips.
Not graded
Overview video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen AI 7 350

  • Strong AI performance with a dedicated NPU delivering up to 50 TOPS for local processing
  • Excellent energy efficiency and battery life, especially in light multitasking and web browsing
  • Solid single-core performance and IPC improvements from the Zen 5 architecture
  • Integrated Radeon 860M iGPU is capable of handling light gaming and 2D creative work smoothly
  • Runs relatively cool and quiet during standard productivity tasks

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen AI 7 350

  • Hybrid core design (4 performance and 4 efficiency cores) leads to lower multi-core performance compared to 8-performance-core competitors
  • Significant performance drop-off when running in high-efficiency power modes
  • Fans can become noticeably loud and frequent under sustained heavy workloads
  • GPU performance is a downgrade for certain specialized tasks compared to higher-tier models like the HX 370
  • Limited future-proofing with support only for PCIe 4.0 instead of the newer PCIe 5.0 standard

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 is an 8-core, 16-thread mobile processor based on the 'Krackan Point' architecture, utilizing a hybrid mix of 4 Zen 5 and 4 Zen 5c cores with a maximum boost clock of 5 GHz. Manufactured on a 4nm process, it features a 16MB L3 cache and a configurable TDP ranging from 15W to 54W. Its standout characteristics include a powerful XDNA 2 NPU capable of 50 TOPS for AI workloads and an integrated Radeon 860M GPU with 8 RDNA 3.5 compute units. Main pros include exceptional energy efficiency for long battery life, strong single-core performance, and a highly capable dedicated AI engine for modern productivity tasks. Cons include a lower core count compared to the Ryzen AI 9 series and integrated graphics that, while capable, may underperform compared to the higher-end Radeon 880M or 890M in demanding gaming scenarios.

Compare AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 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 7 350 and other processors

No results found