AMD Ryzen 7 4800H benchmarks & review, vs Ryzen 5 4600H, Ryzen 7 4800HS and Ryzen 7 3750H

amd ryzen 7 4800h laptops thumb
By Andrei Girbea, last updated on March 30, 2020

For years now, AMD barely mattered in the laptop space, and even if their platforms have improved in recent years, they’ve only been the lower-tier budget alternatives for the Intel Core H platforms.

Not anymore, though. As of Spring 2020, Ryzen 4000 Mobile platforms are available in stores and boy they change everything.

This article is a review of the Ryzen 7 4800H platform, the mid-range APU that replaces last year’s Ryzen 7 3750H and competes with the Intel 9th and 10th gen Core H i7s in performance notebooks.

We’re not going to get much in-depth on the specs and particularities, you’ll find them on AMD’s site and in the quick sheet down below. Instead, we’ll focus on benchmarks results, have a look at how this platform performs in demanding loads and in games when paired with mid-range RTX 2060 graphics, as well as how it handles daily use in terms of thermals and efficiency.

That aside, we’ll also pitch this against the lower-tier Ryzen 5 4600H processor and the previous Ryzen 7 3750H. We’ve left the AMDF HS and the Intel options out of this, as we’re covering those in separate articles that should be available on the site shortly.

Ok, so first off, the specs sheet for the Ryzen 7 4800H APU.

Ryzen 7 4800H Ryzen 7 4800HS Ryzen 5 4600H Ryzen 7 3750H
Build process 7 nm 14 nm
Generation Zen 2 Zen 1
TDP 45 W 35 W 45 W 35 W
Cores/Threads 8/16 8/16 6/12 4/8
CPU Base Frequency 2.9 GHz 2.9 GHz 3.0 GHz 2.3 GHz
CPU Max Turbo 4.2 GHz 4.2 GHz 4.0 GHz 4.0 GHz
L3 Cache 8 MB 4 MB
Memory Type
DDR4 3200 MHz, LPDDR4X 4266 MHz DDR4 2400 MHz
Graphics Radeon Vega, 8 CUs Radeon Vega, 7 CUs Radeon Vega, 6 CUs Radeon RX Vega 10
Graphics Speed up to  1600 MHz up to  1600 MHz up to  1500 MHz up to  1400 MHz
Processing Power 1.43 TFLOPs 1.43 TFLOPs 1.15 TFLOPs

The updated Zen2 Ryzen 4000 platforms offer not just a significant increase in core/thread count over the Ryzen 7 3750H, but also improved IPC and multiple other various optimizations, as well as a more powerful Vega iGPU implementation. That’s not going to matter much though, as Ryzen H APUs are always bundled with some sort of dedicated GPU that will handle the demanding graphics loads instead.

As far as the performance goes, let’s jump straight into the demanding CPU loads. We ran tests on two different Ryzen 7 4800H notebooks from Asus (the TUF Gaming A15 and A17 variants), which offer a Turbo power profile that increases the CPU’s power allocation in demanding loads. That’s similar for Intel platforms, just keep in mind that not all notebook are created equally, and some might not be as generous.

For the first test, we’re running Cinebench R15 for 15+ loops on these Turbo profiles, which set a TDP of 54W for these Ryzen 7 4800H. That’s allowing them to run at higher clocks than on a standard 45W implementation.


Ryzen 4800H Cinebench Benchmarks - Turbo modes

However, Asus also offers a Performance profile that tames down the fans and sets a lower 35W TDP, and we’ve included these results down below as well. The two scenarios paint a general picture of what to expect from various implementations on this Ryzen 7 4800H platform.

Ryzen 7 4800H Cinebench benchmarks in Performance power profiles

And here’s a quick comparison between these several AMD platforms. These results are based on the Ryzen 7 4800HS in the Asus ROG Zephyrus G14, the Ryzen 5 4600H in the Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA506IU (review available soon), and the Ryzen 7 3750H results on the Asus TUF Gaming FX505. We haven’t properly logged our findings for the Cinebench R20 tests on the 35W 4800H implementation, so we’ll update that in a future article.

Ryzen 7 4800H (FA506) Ryzen 7 4800H (FA706) Ryzen 7 4800HS (GA401) Ryzen 5 4600H (FA506) Ryzen 7 3750H (FX505)
Cinebench R15 CPU – 54W 1846 cb 1869 cb 1731 cb 1446 cb 776 cb
Cinebench R15 Single Core – 54W 188 cb 188 cb 188 cb 177 cb 153 cb
Cinebench R15 CPU – 35W 1645 cb 1678 cb 1570 cb 1325 cb 776 cb
Cinebench R20 CPU – 54W 4236 cb 4249 cb 3928 cb 3245 cb 1727 cb
Cinebench R20 Single Core – 54W 468 cb 481 cb 478 cb 449 cb 362 cb

We also ran Prime95 on the 4800H configurations in order to show how the CPU deals with longer 100% loads. In both implementations the Ryzen 7 4800H kicks in hard, at around 54 W, but then settles at 45W after a few minutes, with slight frequency and temperature variations. The log below also shows what to expect in terms of temperatures, although that’s not really relevant in this sort of scenario, but rather in combined CPU and GPU chores. We’ll get to those further down.

perf temps stress prime95

This aside, we also ran a few other benchmarks on the various configurations, including GeekBench and 3DMark, as well as Blender, Handbrake video encoding and x265 Bench decoding. All these tests are running on the Turbo/Highest-performance settings.

Ryzen 7 4800H (FA506) Ryzen 7 4800H (FA706) Ryzen 7 4800HS (GA401) Ryzen 5 4600H (FA506) Ryzen 7 3750H (FX505)
3DMark – Fire Strike Physics 22207 22320 20984 18378 11436
3DMark – Time Spy CPU 9126 9533 8236 6792 3293
Blender – BMW Scene, CPU 3m 35s 3m 18s 3m 44s 4m 32s
Blender – Classroom Scene, CPU 11m 15s 10m 21s 11m 32s 14m 32s
Geekbench 4 64-bit – Multi-Core 30945 31614 29334 25955 13239
Geekbench 5 64-bit – Multi-Core 8294 8370 7701 6763 3660
Geekbench 5 64-bit – Single Core 1195 1198 1195 1117 974
HandBrake 4K > 1080p encoding 43.48 fps 44.65 fps 41.79 fps 40.18 fps
PassMark CPU 20835 20950 19686 17170 9766
PCMark 10 – Productivity 7443 7245 7411 6999 6076
PCMark 10 – Digital Content Creation 6598 6101 6558 5866 4667
x265 HD Benchmark 33.48 fps 32.68 fps 35.58s 41.02s 74.76s

A couple of things to take out of these results:

  • First off, the 4800H implementation in the larger 17-inch TUF Gaming A17 scores a little bit higher in demanding CPU loads than the sample processor in the smaller 15-inch FA506.
  • The efficient 4800HS version holds its way excellently in most Single-Core tests, as scores within 10% of the full-power 4800H in multi-threaded loads. that’s excellent considering it runs at significantly less power.
  • The Ryzen 5 4600H scores at about 75% of what the Ryzen 7 in multi-core loads, and the differences get smaller in tasks such as video encoding/decoding or in the Productivity/Content Creation loads.
  • Keep in mind that PCMark 10 scores are influenced by the entire configuration, RAM, SSD and GPU.
  • Finally, the older Ryzen 7 3750H is outperformed across the board. The Ryzen 5 4600H offers roughly twice the performance, and the Ryzen 7 offers 2.5x results in most multi-threaded tests, with significant gains in single-core tests as well.

Finally, we should also talk about the gaming experience and thermals. These will vastly vary between implementations, based on graphics and thermal implementations available in each product. However, the fact that we’re comparing fairly similar Asus notebooks helps here.

We’ve added some results down below. Keep in mind we’re looking at the following configurations, and all the games are running on the Turbo profiles and FHD resolution:

Battlefield V (DX 12, Ultra Preset, Ray-Tracing OFF) 74-88 fps 78-84 fps
Far Cry 5 (DX 11, Ultra Preset, SMAA) 91 fps 83 fps 84 fps 72 fps
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (DX 11, Ultra Preset) 147 fps 140 fps 138 fps
Red Dead Redemption 2 (DX 12, Ultra Optimized, TAA) 69 fps 59 fps 59 fps
Rise of Tomb Raider (DX 12, Very High Preset, FXAA) 91 fps 85 fps 82 fps 61 fps
Shadow of Tomb Raider (DX 12, Highest Preset, TAA) 78 fps 73 fps 70 fps 65 fps
Strange Brigade (Vulkan, Ultra Preset) 119 fps 106 fps 109 fps
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (DX 11, Ultra Preset, Hairworks On 4) 64-98 fps 58-82 fps 58-90 fps 68-92 fps
  • The Witcher 3 – recorded with Fraps/in-game FPS counter in campaign mode;
  • Far Cry 5, Middle Earth, Strange Brigade, Red Dead Redemption 2, Tomb Raider games – recorded with the included Benchmark utilities;
  • Red Dead Redemption 2 Optimized profile based on these settings.

Finally, as far as thermals go, the entire range of Ryzen 7 4000 CPUs hit high temperatures with gaming and complex CPU/GPU loads, in the 85-95 degrees Celsius. Having a lower-tier GPU helps, but not that much, as you can see on the TUF A17 FA706II log.

In conclusion, AMD did a great job with the Ryzen 4000 H platform and the updated generation is a massive improvement of the previous Ryzen lineups. Unfortunately, AMD still needs to win more SKUs, especially in the premium implementations. Right now there are few Ryzen 4000 H laptops out there, and most are mid-tier and lower-end variants with up to RTX 2060 graphics. What I’m looking forward to are higher-tier models with RTX 2080+ graphics, which hopefully will be available later in the year.

That’s about for our review and benchmarks of the Ryzen 7 4800H platform. Let me know what you think about it in the comments section down below, and don’t forget that more details are available in each of our detailed laptop reviews.

Disclaimer: Our content is reader-supported. If you buy through some of the links on our site, we may earn a commission. Terms.
Author at
Article by: Andrei Girbea
Andrei Girbea is a Writer and Editor-in-Chief here at I write about mobile technology, laptops and computers in general. I've been doing it for more than 15 years now. I'm a techie with a Bachelor's in Computer Engineering. I mostly write reviews and thorough guides here on the site, with some occasional columns and first-impression articles.


  1. Nicolas Jafelle

    April 1, 2020 at 5:12 pm

    Great comparision!! So, do you say that any of this new chipsets will be hotter than old ryzen 3500u and 3700u? maybe the 4600u will be the sweet spot between thermals, fan noise and performance? Thanks!

    • Andrei Girbea

      April 1, 2020 at 6:10 pm

      Wait, U series are different than H series and not included here. Did you mean the 4600H? If yes, that's also 45W. Temperatures are dependant on the power profiles implemented in each laptop, with the TUF Gaming models we've reviewed so far, Asus offers high TDP + High fans or average TDP and average fans, and both end up with hot CPU temperatures. Average TDP + high fans should offer better thermals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *