Ryzen 9 4900H vs Ryzen 5 2400G

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 2400G
2018
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
5.49
Ryzen 9 4900H
2020
8 cores / 16 threads, 54 Watt
12.06
+120%

Ryzen 9 4900H outperforms Ryzen 5 2400G by a whopping 120% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 9 4900H processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1151635
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.92no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5AMD Renoir (Ryzen 4000 APU)
Power efficiency7.9921.14
Architecture codenameRaven Ridge (2017−2018)Renoir-H (Zen 2) (2020)
Release date12 February 2018 (6 years ago)16 March 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$169no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 9 4900H basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads816
Base clock speed3.6 GHz3.3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz4.4 GHz
Multiplier3633
L1 cache128K (per core)128K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache4 MB (shared)12 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm
Die size210 mm2156 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors4,950 million9800 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 9 4900H compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketAM4FP6
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt54 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 9 4900H. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTMMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA, SHA
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 9 4900H are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 9 4900H. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR4
Maximum memory size64 GB64 GB
Max memory channels24
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/s68.27 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon RX Vega 11AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 9 4900H.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes12no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Ryzen 5 2400G 5.49
Ryzen 9 4900H 12.06
+120%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Ryzen 5 2400G 8727
Ryzen 9 4900H 19150
+119%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Ryzen 5 2400G 1034
Ryzen 9 4900H 1549
+49.8%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Ryzen 5 2400G 3218
Ryzen 9 4900H 6736
+109%

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Ryzen 5 2400G 4805
Ryzen 9 4900H 5946
+23.7%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Ryzen 5 2400G 21024
Ryzen 9 4900H 40253
+91.5%

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Ryzen 5 2400G 6.9
Ryzen 9 4900H 3.19
+116%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Ryzen 5 2400G 9
Ryzen 9 4900H 23
+143%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Ryzen 5 2400G 847
Ryzen 9 4900H 1927
+128%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Ryzen 5 2400G 156
Ryzen 9 4900H 193
+24%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Ryzen 5 2400G 1.77
Ryzen 9 4900H 2.24
+26.6%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Ryzen 5 2400G 5.2
Ryzen 9 4900H 7.4
+42.3%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Ryzen 5 2400G 48
Ryzen 9 4900H 111
+131%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Ryzen 5 2400G 172
Ryzen 9 4900H 215
+25.3%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Ryzen 5 2400G 3846
Ryzen 9 4900H 4297
+11.7%

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 5 2400G 3885
Ryzen 9 4900H 8012
+106%

Blender(-)

Ryzen 5 2400G 551
+123%
Ryzen 9 4900H 247

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 5 2400G 1001
Ryzen 9 4900H 1232
+23%

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 5 2400G 3909
Ryzen 9 4900H 4727
+20.9%

7-Zip

Ryzen 5 2400G 19885
Ryzen 9 4900H 48976
+146%

WebXPRT 3

Ryzen 5 2400G 170
Ryzen 9 4900H 227
+33.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.49 12.06
Integrated graphics card 5.48 9.04
Recency 12 February 2018 16 March 2020
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 8 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 54 Watt

Ryzen 9 4900H has a 119.7% higher aggregate performance score, 65% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 20.4% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 9 4900H is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 2400G in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 2400G is a desktop processor while Ryzen 9 4900H is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 9 4900H, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
Ryzen 5 2400G
AMD Ryzen 9 4900H
Ryzen 9 4900H

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 1443 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 2400G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 240 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 4900H on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 2400G or Ryzen 9 4900H, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.