Single-core performance has not improved since its Kaby Lake predecessor. 1.7x faster CPU speed? These characteristics, as well as an IPC (instructions per cycle) number, determine how well a processor performs. Additionally, Ryzen 7 3750H features 4MB of Cache, while the Core i7-9750H has around 12MB. These features, as well as an IPC (instructions per cycle) number, determine how well a microprocessor performs.
When we take a look at the maximum memory support we see another clear advantage to the Core i7-9750H – it an get up to 128 GB of DDR4 RAM at 2666 MHz, compared to the 64GB of the same type and speed of the Ryzen 7 3750H. The integrated dual-channel memory controller supports up to DDR4-2400 memory. AMD Ryzen 7 3750H We compared two laptop CPUs: the 2.6 GHz Intel Core i7 9750H with 6-cores against the 2.3 GHz AMD Ryzen 7 3750H with 4-cores. These parameters indirectly say of Core i7-9750H and Ryzen 7 3750H performance, but for precise … Compared to the predecessor, the Core i7-8750H, the 9750H offers improved clock rates and more L3 cache.

The AMD Ryzen 7 3750H is a mobile SoC that was announced in January 2019. For example, the ThinkPad E595 offers a miles better short and long-term CPU performance compared to the HP Envy x360 (see Cinebench R15 loop below). Using cTDP-down, the CPU can also be configured to 35 Watt resulting in a reduced performance. AMD Ryzen™ 7 3750H Processors are equipped with Zen Core and the intelligent SenseMI Technology & Radeon™ RX Vega 10 Graphics. The performance of the Ryzen 7 3700U is heavily depending on the TDP settings and the cooling solution of the laptop. It combines four Zen+ cores (8 threads) clocked at 2.3 - … Based on 192,756 user benchmarks for the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H and the Intel Core i7-9750H, we rank them both on effective speed and value for money against the best 1,266 CPUs. Created at Fri, 09 Oct 2020 11:52:55 +0200 +0.001s ... 0.001s, #7 got avg benchmarks for devices +0.467s ... 0.531s, #8 skipping 22/238 for average % as not all devices got results +0.499s ... 1.03s, #9 skipping 22/239 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #10 skipping 716/2169 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #11 skipping 37/155 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #12 skipping 136/457 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #13 skipping 136/456 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #14 skipping 136/455 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #15 skipping 136/454 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #16 skipping 136/453 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #17 skipping 235/852 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #18 skipping 235/851 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #19 skipping 393/1073 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #20 skipping 393/1072 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #21 skipping 693/2089 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #22 skipping 693/2090 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #23 skipping 717/2170 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #24 skipping 717/2171 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #25 skipping 124/649 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.03s, #26 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 1.03s.