AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT vs AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests against the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS, with zero wins for the mobile chip. The average benchmark score tells the same story: the 5500GT records 26,748 against 19,364 for the 7533HS, a difference that places the desktop part in the 79th percentile of all CPUs while the mobile chip sits in the 73rd percentile.

The 5500GT is the clear choice for anyone building a desktop system on AMD Socket AM4. Its 65 W TDP, unlocked multiplier, and 7 nm Zen 3 architecture deliver consistently higher scores across every workload category. The 7533HS, by contrast, targets slim mobile chassis with its 35 W TDP and 6 nm Zen 3+ design, but the recorded measurements show it trails the desktop part by margins ranging from 2.3% in PassMark physics to a substantial 51.8% in extended instructions.

For users who need maximum compute performance in a desktop context, the 5500GT is the only rational pick from this data. The 7533HS makes sense only when the requirement is a low-power mobile processor, where its 35 W envelope and integrated Radeon 660M graphics serve a different purpose entirely. The data does not support choosing the 7533HS for raw performance; it supports choosing it for portability and power efficiency, though those specific metrics are not directly measured in this database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT runs at 3.60 GHz base, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS runs at 3.30 GHz. Both share the same 4.40 GHz boost clock.

Q: How big is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The 5500GT leads by 28.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (15,848 vs 12,342) and by 30.9% in PassMark multithread (19,000 vs 14,520). The Cinebench R20 multi-core gap is also 28.4% (6,656 vs 5,183).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The 5500GT supports DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the 7533HS supports DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the 7533HS having higher theoretical memory bandwidth, it still loses all compute benchmarks.

Q: Which processor has the better integrated graphics?

A: The 7533HS uses a Radeon 660M, while the 5500GT uses a Radeon Vega 7. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so no performance comparison can be made from recorded data.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The 5500GT has an unlocked multiplier, while the 7533HS is locked. This gives the desktop part additional headroom beyond its already higher stock scores.

Q: What is the release timeline for these two chips?

A: The 5500GT launched on January 7, 2024, with a launch MSRP of $125. The 7533HS launched later on August 31, 2024, and has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations despite sharing the same core and thread counts. The 5500GT uses Zen 3 architecture with the Cezanne codename, built on TSMC's 7 nm process node. The 7533HS uses Zen 3+ architecture with the Rembrandt-R codename, built on TSMC's 6 nm process node. Both have 6 cores and 12 threads.

The die size differs notably. The 5500GT measures 180 mm² with 10,700 million transistors, while the 7533HS measures a larger 208 mm² die with no transistor count recorded in the database. This suggests the mobile chip's integrated Radeon 660M graphics and additional I/O take up more physical space, even though the CPU core count remains identical.

Cache organization is nearly identical: both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache differs slightly in description: the 5500GT has 16 MB without a specified sharing arrangement, while the 7533HS explicitly lists 16 MB as shared. In practical terms, both provide the same total L3 capacity.

The memory controllers diverge significantly. The 5500GT supports DDR4 with dual-channel operation and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The 7533HS supports DDR5 with dual-channel operation and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, a 50% higher theoretical ceiling. PCIe connectivity also differs: the desktop chip offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the mobile chip offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

Neither processor supports ECC memory. Both have integrated graphics, but different models: Vega 7 on the 5500GT versus Radeon 660M on the 7533HS. The manufacturing process difference (7 nm vs 6 nm) is the most direct architectural distinction, along with the Zen 3 versus Zen 3+ microarchitecture update.

Specification Differences

The core specifications show both shared traits and clear divergences. Both chips have 6 cores, 12 threads, 4.40 GHz boost clock, dual-channel memory bus, and no ECC support. The differences start with base clock: 3.60 GHz on the 5500GT versus 3.30 GHz on the 7533HS.

Thermal design power presents the largest practical difference. The 5500GT consumes 65 W, while the 7533HS consumes only 35 W. This 30 W gap explains the mobile chip's lower performance ceiling, as it must operate within a much tighter power envelope.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The 5500GT uses AMD Socket AM4, the desktop platform. The 7533HS uses AMD Socket FP7, a mobile socket. These are not interchangeable, meaning the choice of processor dictates the entire platform.

Memory support differs as noted: DDR4 for the desktop chip, DDR5 for the mobile chip. The memory bandwidth figures follow accordingly, with the mobile part's DDR5 interface theoretically capable of 76.8 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s for the desktop part's DDR4.

Process node and codename differ: 7 nm Cezanne versus 6 nm Rembrandt-R. The die size is larger on the mobile chip (208 mm² vs 180 mm²). The market segment differs by definition: Desktop for the 5500GT, Mobile for the 7533HS.

The multiplier is unlocked on the 5500GT but locked on the 7533HS. Part numbers differ: 100-000001489 for the desktop chip, and 100-000001632 (FP7) or 100-000001634 (FP7r2) for the mobile chip. The release dates are also different, with the 5500GT launching approximately eight months earlier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a remarkably consistent gap across all versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 5500GT scores 1,597 against 1,243 for the 7533HS, a 28.5% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 225 versus 175, a 28.6% gap. Moving to R20, multi-core scores 6,656 versus 5,183 (28.4% delta), and single-core scores 939 versus 731 (28.5% delta). R23 follows the same pattern: multi-core 15,848 versus 12,342 (28.4% delta), single-core 2,237 versus 1,742 (28.4% delta).

The PassMark suite reveals where the 5500GT extends its lead even further. Extended instructions shows the largest margin at 51.8% (17,027 versus 11,219). Data compression follows at 44.6% (243,904 versus 168,692). Random string sorting delivers a 39.1% gap (24,583 versus 17,669). Data encryption shows 37.7% (14,754 versus 10,718). Floating point math scores 36,694 versus 27,800, a 32% difference. Integer math shows 64,218 versus 50,800, a 26.4% gap.

The multithread test shows 19,000 versus 14,520, a 30.9% delta. Single-thread performance is closer but still favors the desktop chip: 3,066 versus 2,740, an 11.9% gap. Find prime numbers shows a modest 12.5% delta (54 versus 48). The narrowest margin in the entire comparison is PassMark physics: 840 versus 821, just a 2.3% difference.

Every one of the 17 recorded tests goes to the 5500GT. The consistency of the Cinebench deltas (all within 28.4% to 28.6%) suggests a systematic advantage from the higher base clock and higher power budget, rather than workload-specific behavior. The PassMark suite shows more variance, with some tests like extended instructions amplifying the gap beyond 50%, while physics barely separates the two.

Where Each One Wins

The 5500GT wins every workload category in the database. Its strongest advantages appear in extended instructions (51.8% ahead), data compression (44.6% ahead), random string sorting (39.1% ahead), and data encryption (37.7% ahead). These results indicate a processor that handles complex instruction sets, compression algorithms, and cryptographic workloads with substantially higher throughput.

The 7533HS, despite losing all tests, shows its closest relative performance in PassMark physics (2.3% behind) and find prime numbers (12.5% behind). These are less memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads where the mobile chip's 6 nm process and similar architecture narrow the gap. The 7533HS also has the theoretical advantage of DDR5 memory bandwidth at 76.8 GB/s, though this does not translate into any recorded benchmark win.

For desktop builders, the 5500GT is the obvious selection: it delivers higher scores in every measured test, offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and uses the mature AM4 platform with DDR4 memory. Its 65 W TDP is modest for a desktop part and should be manageable with standard cooling solutions.

For mobile system designers, the 7533HS serves a different role. Its 35 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency matters more than peak performance. The Radeon 660M integrated graphics and DDR5 support provide modern platform features, even if CPU compute scores trail the desktop part. The data suggests the 7533HS is not a performance leader, but it occupies a specific niche where its power envelope is the primary consideration.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split: the 5500GT sits at the 79th percentile of all CPUs, while the 7533HS sits at the 73rd percentile. Both are above average, but the desktop chip is clearly positioned higher in the overall performance distribution. Users who need maximum compute from a 6-core, 12-thread processor should look to the 5500GT; users who need a low-power mobile processor with similar core counts should consider the 7533HS, accepting its lower benchmark scores as the tradeoff for reduced power consumption.