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 Z1 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£530PassMark multi-core score:18461N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.9 GHzCPU socket:FP8TDP (Thermal design power):?

AMD Ryzen Z1 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 8 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.3/10

Overall score

Score
7.3/ 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 72% of models
Score components

40%

7.3

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 72% of processors
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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–² Better than 58% of models
Score components

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

7.7

Price

â–²Better than 58%
7.3

Technical score

Technical score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 74% of models
Score components

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

7.3

Architecture

10%

8.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

8.3

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 74%
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

7.3

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.0

Average grade

20%

8.5

Popularity

Grades by review (8)
8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £530
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 Z1

Based on 0 · 7

Reviewers like the screen, battery life and build, but find it pricey and are split on how well games run.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Z1

Technical score
Technical score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 74% of models
Score components:

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

7.3

Architecture

10%

8.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

8.3

Integrated graphics

7.3
Reviews score
7.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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–² Better than 58% of models
Score components:

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

7.7

Price

7.4
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
Z790, B660
This processor supports Z790, B660 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
6
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 6 CPU cores, which is more than 47.7% of processors and equal to 13.4% of processors.
CPU threads
12
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 53% of processors and equal to 14.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.9 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.9 GHz which is higher than that of 73.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 3.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x3.2 GHz which is higher than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
18,461
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 18,461 in PassMark, which is higher than 65.6% of processors and equal to 0.1% 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
6 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 6 MB which is larger than that of 65.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% 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
7,500 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 7,500 MHz, which is higher than that of 92.2% of processors and equal to 3.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5600 MHz, which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
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 740M
This processor uses the Radeon 740M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 92.5% of processors and equal to that in 1.3% 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
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
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
?
Base power (PL1)
?
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 9 W
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen Z1 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Phoenix 2 vs Kaby Lake).
    Phoenix 2 vs Kaby Lake
  • 3.41x higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (1,672 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    1,672 vs 490
  • 42.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,648 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,648 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
  • 61% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,461 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,461 vs 11,469
  • 57.5% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,204 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,204 vs 5,209
  • 45.2% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,229 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,229 vs 1,535
  • 2.34x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 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

    7.3

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    8 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.
    7.3 vs 6.7
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    September 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • 3.41x higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (1,672 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    1,672 vs 490
  • 42.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,648 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,648 vs 2,558
  • 61% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,461 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,461 vs 11,469
  • 57.5% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,204 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,204 vs 5,209
  • 45.2% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,229 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,229 vs 1,535
  • 11.4% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Phoenix 2 vs Kaby Lake).
    Phoenix 2 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 4 + Zen 4c cores
  • 43.8% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2.7 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2.66 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 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
  • 2x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    6 MB vs 3 MB
  • 22.6% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (137 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    137 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 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
  • 2.34x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    7,500 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 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 (DDR5-5600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 740M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 740M 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
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 2.12x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Z1 is more expensive than the average processor (£530 vs £250).
    £530 vs £250
  • 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
  • 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
  • 2.12x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Z1 is more expensive than the average processor (£530 vs £250).
    £530 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
  • 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

Video reviews

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

7.0
SSG Handheld
≈ estimated
09/07/2024
Buyers guide · pros and cons from daily use
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Z1 is worth it for buyers who need Windows launcher compatibility, despite thumbstick, battery and returns issues.
7.0
ShortCircuit
≈ estimated
17/11/2023
Hands-on review · battery, performance and thermal tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Z1 is decent for light portable gaming, but it is overpriced, and the Steam Deck OLED makes it hard to recommend.
5.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
09/10/2023
Benchmark comparison · Z1 vs Z1 Extreme gaming and battery tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Z1 saves little money but gives up a lot of GPU performance, so the Z1 Extreme is the better buy.
8.0
Retro Game Corps
≈ estimated
18/09/2023
Hands-on review · two weeks of use and game tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Z1 suits light games and emulation, but demanding AAA titles need the Extreme model.
5.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
18/09/2023
Hands-on review · battery, emulation and value against the Z1 Extreme
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Z1 lacks the GPU power of the Z1 Extreme, so the Extreme is the better pick unless the price gap is larger.
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen Z1

  • Excellent value for budget-conscious gamers, often found at a lower price point than the Z1 Extreme
  • Strong performance-per-watt efficiency, particularly when optimized for a 15W power limit
  • Capable of playing many AAA titles at 720p with playable frame rates, especially when using AMD's FSR upscaling
  • Supports modern features like RDNA 3 graphics and Zen 4 architecture, offering a significant jump over older Zen 3 chips
  • Runs cool and quiet in handheld devices like the ROG Ally due to its lower power draw

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen Z1

  • Significant performance drop compared to the Z1 Extreme, with roughly 40-50% less graphical power
  • Struggles with demanding modern games at the native 1080p resolution, often failing to reach 60fps even on low settings
  • Smaller L3 cache and fewer GPU compute units (4 CUs vs. 12 CUs in the Extreme) limit its multitasking and high-end gaming potential
  • Battery life remains a concern in handhelds, even with the more efficient chip, due to the power requirements of the Windows OS
  • Often considered a poor investment if the Z1 Extreme model is available for only a small price increase, as the performance gains of the latter are much higher

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Z1 is a specialized 4nm processor designed for handheld gaming, featuring a hybrid architecture of 6 cores (2x Zen 4 and 4x Zen 4c) and 12 threads with a boost clock reaching 4.9 GHz. It integrates AMD RDNA 3 graphics with 4 compute units, 22MB of combined L2/L3 cache, and a configurable TDP ranging from 9W to 30W. Its main advantages include high power efficiency—maintaining playable 720p performance at a low 15W envelope—and support for advanced features like LPDDR5X memory, USB4, and upscaling technologies such as FSR and RSR. However, it faces significant drawbacks, including a substantial 40-50% performance gap compared to the Z1 Extreme variant and the absence of a dedicated XDNA AI accelerator found in similar laptop-class chips.

Compare AMD Ryzen Z1 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 Z1 and other processors

No results found