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 9 365 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£950PassMark multi-core score:30377N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:FP8TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 5 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.

8.0/10

Overall score

Score
8.0/ 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 94% of models
Score components

40%

8.2

Technical score

25%

8.0

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 94% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components

70%

8.0

Overall score

30%

5.5

Price

▼Worse than 60%
8.2

Technical score

Technical score
8.2/ 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 89% of models
Score components

60%

8.3

Performance

18%

7.9

Architecture

10%

8.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 89%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 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 72% of models

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 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 72%
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 83 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £950
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 9 365

Based on 2 · 3

Reviewers like its strong CPU performance and solid build, but find its graphics and gaming performance disappointing.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen AI 9 365

Technical score
Technical score
8.2/ 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 89% of models
Score components:

60%

8.3

Performance

18%

7.9

Architecture

10%

8.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

8.2
Reviews score
8.0
List score
8.0
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

8.0

Overall score

30%

5.5

Price

7.2
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.
handheld
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
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
10
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 10 CPU cores, which is more than 75.2% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
20
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 20 CPU threads, which is more than 84.3% of processors and equal to 5% 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 & 6x 2.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz & 6x2.0 GHz which is higher than that of 64.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
30,377
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 30,377 in PassMark, which is higher than 86.3% 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
24 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 24 MB which is larger than that of 80.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
L2 cache
10 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 10 MB which is larger than that of 79% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
L1 cache
800 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 800 KB which is larger than that of 81% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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)
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 880M
This processor uses the Radeon 880M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 97.5% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
800 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 800 MHz which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.3% 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
What reviewers say
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.
Show more

AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.67x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,897 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,897 vs 5,209
  • 2.65x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (30,377 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    30,377 vs 11,469
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Strix Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Strix Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 51.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,871 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,871 vs 2,558
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 61.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,478 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,478 vs 1,535
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 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
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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 72% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    8.0 vs 6.7
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    July 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA vs AES, SHA
  • 2.67x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,897 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,897 vs 5,209
  • 2.65x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (30,377 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    30,377 vs 11,469
  • 51.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,871 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,871 vs 2,558
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 61.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,478 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,478 vs 1,535
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 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
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz & 6x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz & 6x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Strix Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Strix Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 3.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (10 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    10 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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
  • 29.7% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2.4 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2.4 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 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
  • 2.08x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (800 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    800 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2.67x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    24 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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 (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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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 880M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 880M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 2.29x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (800 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 31.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (233 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    233 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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)
  • 3.8x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 is more expensive than the average processor (£950 vs £250).
    £950 vs £250
  • 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
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24
  • 3.8x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 is more expensive than the average processor (£950 vs £250).
    £950 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Pluton 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
  • 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
  • 31.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (233 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    233 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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)
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24

Video reviews

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

9.0
Lon.TV
≈ estimated
22/10/2025
Hands-on review · gaming, Windows, Linux and benchmark tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 is a strong mini PC for buyers who want higher-end power, with a few caveats.
9.0
UFD Tech
≈ estimated
18/08/2024
Hands-on review · battery, gaming and benchmark tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 powers a thin laptop with a great build, display and performance for its class, despite a high price.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
29/07/2024
Linux laptop test · Power efficiency
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 is a slightly cut-down Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 that gives better performance per watt and runs Linux well when up to date.
5.0
t3.com
≈ estimated
15/03/2025
Head-to-head test · Intel vs AMD
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 is a lower-power laptop chip that trails Intel's Core Ultra 9 285H in multi-core speed, gaming and battery life.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen AI 9 365

  • Exceptional power efficiency with a notable performance-per-watt uplift over previous Zen 4 generations
  • Strong multi-core performance for a 10-core laptop chip, often matching or exceeding higher-wattage older models
  • Solid integrated graphics performance from the Radeon 880M, suitable for casual and competitive gaming
  • Features a dedicated XDNA 2 NPU capable of up to 50 TOPS for accelerating local AI workloads
  • Native support for modern standards including USB4, LPDDR5x-7500 RAM, and WiFi 6E

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen AI 9 365

  • Lower single-core performance compared to competitors like the Apple M3 series or Snapdragon X Elite
  • Integrated GPU (Radeon 880M) is approximately 10-15% slower than the Radeon 890M found in the flagship HX 370 model
  • Hybrid core architecture (4 Zen 5 + 6 Zen 5c) can occasionally lead to higher inter-core latencies or scheduling issues
  • Not intended for heavy-duty workstation tasks, as it trails the 12-core HX 370 and Intel's high-performance HX series
  • NPU support on Linux currently requires an out-of-tree software stack, though upstreaming is ongoing

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 is a high-performance mobile processor from the Strix Point series, featuring a hybrid architecture with 10 cores (4 Zen 5 and 6 Zen 5c) and 20 threads. Built on a 4nm process, it operates at a base clock of 2.0 GHz with a max boost up to 5.0 GHz and includes 34 MB of total cache (10 MB L2, 24 MB L3). Its standout features include a powerful XDNA 2 NPU delivering up to 50 TOPS for AI workloads and integrated Radeon 880M graphics with 12 RDNA 3.5 cores. Main pros include exceptional power efficiency for thin-and-light laptops, strong single-threaded snappiness, and class-leading NPU performance for Copilot+ PC experiences. However, it faces some drawbacks such as being soldered to the motherboard (non-replaceable), lower multi-threaded performance compared to desktop-class HX chips, and an iGPU that, while capable, trails the higher-tier Radeon 890M.

Compare AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 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 9 365 and other processors

No results found