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 HX 375 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,540PassMark multi-core score:35073N. of physical cores:12CPU boost clock speed:5.1 GHzCPU socket:FP8TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375
7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 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
â–² Better than 87% of models
Score components

40%

8.4

Technical score

25%

7.3

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

â–²Better than 87% of processors
6.1

Value for money

Value for money
6.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

2.4

Price

â–¼Worse than 95%
8.4

Technical score

Technical score
8.4/ 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
★ Better than 93% of models
Score components

60%

8.7

Performance

18%

8.0

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

8.9

Integrated graphics

★Better than 93%
7.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.3/ 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 57% of models

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 57%
?

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-ai-9-hx-375
amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-375
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,540
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 9 HX 375

Technical score
Technical score
8.4/ 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
★ Better than 93% of models
Score components:

60%

8.7

Performance

18%

8.0

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

8.9

Integrated graphics

8.4
Reviews score
7.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

2.4

Price

6.1
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.
mobile workstation
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
B660, X670E
This processor supports B660, X670E chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 89.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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
12
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 12 CPU cores, which is more than 79.9% of processors and equal to 5.7% of processors.
CPU threads
24
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 24 CPU threads, which is more than 89.7% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.1 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.1 GHz which is higher than that of 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz & 8x 2.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz & 8x2.0 GHz which is higher than that of 73.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
35,073
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 35,073 in PassMark, which is higher than 90.2% 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
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
12 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 83.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
L1 cache
960 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 960 KB which is larger than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 1% 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
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 890M
This processor uses the Radeon 890M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 97.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
16
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 16 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% 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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 90.8% of processors and equal to 3.4% 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 9 HX 375 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.06x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (35,073 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    35,073 vs 11,469
  • 2.88x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (15,012 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    15,012 vs 5,209
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Strix Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Strix Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 86.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,864 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,864 vs 1,535
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 54.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,950 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,950 vs 2,558
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 15.9% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 9.0% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.3/ 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 57% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.3 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
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3.06x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (35,073 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    35,073 vs 11,469
  • 2.88x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (15,012 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    15,012 vs 5,209
  • 86.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,864 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,864 vs 1,535
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 54.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,950 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,950 vs 2,558
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 15.9% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz & 8x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz & 8x2.0 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
  • 4x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    12 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
  • 2.5x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (960 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    960 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 2.67x 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
  • 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
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 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 890M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 890M 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
  • 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
  • 6.16x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is more expensive than the average processor (£1,540 vs £250).
    £1,540 vs £250
  • 18.5% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.15 vs 7.3).
    6.15 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, GMET, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, GMET, 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
  • 6.16x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is more expensive than the average processor (£1,540 vs £250).
    £1,540 vs £250
  • 18.5% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.15 vs 7.3).
    6.15 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, GMET, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, GMET, 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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.8
notebookcheck.net
✓ explicit
05/10/2024
Lab test · Laptop benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 gives the HP OmniBook Ultra 14 leading PCMark 10 scores, though memory copying speed trails some rivals.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375

  • Industry-leading NPU performance (55 TOPS) for local AI and LLM workloads
  • Excellent multi-core efficiency, rivaling high-end desktop chips like the i7-14700K in some tasks
  • The Radeon 890M integrated graphics provide a significant boost for 1080p gaming and creative work
  • Maintains competitive battery life even in thin-and-light laptop designs
  • Native support for ultra-fast LPDDR5x-8000 memory
  • Stays remarkably cool under moderate workloads compared to Intel counterparts

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375

  • Negligible performance gains over the standard HX 370 for non-AI tasks
  • Premium pricing often makes it a poor 'value-for-money' upgrade compared to the HX 370
  • Locked multiplier prevents easy overclocking for enthusiasts
  • Some early users reported driver-related stability issues, including BSODs during file transfers
  • NPU utilization is currently limited by a lack of software that fully supports the new XDNA2 architecture

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is a flagship Strix Point mobile processor featuring a hybrid architecture of 12 cores (4 Zen 5 and 8 Zen 5c) and 24 threads, with a max boost clock of 5.1 GHz and a configurable TDP of 15–54W. Its standout characteristic is an integrated XDNA 2 NPU delivering a class-leading 55 TOPS for AI workloads, complemented by a powerful Radeon 890M iGPU with 16 RDNA 3.5 compute units. Main pros include exceptional local AI processing power, high energy efficiency on a 4nm process, and top-tier integrated graphics performance suitable for light 1080p gaming. However, its primary cons include limited performance gains over the nearly identical HX 370 outside of specific AI tasks, and a lack of support for the newer VVC video codec compared to some competitors.

Compare AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 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 HX 375 and other processors

No results found