AMD Ryzen 9 4900H vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS compare to the AMD Ryzen 9 4900H in multi-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The 5900HS scores 12745.5 points versus 11604 points for the 4900H, a 9.8% advantage. The 5900HS also wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core with 2041 points versus 1926.5, a 5.9% lead.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 9 4900H boosts to 4.40 GHz. The 4900H, however, has a higher base clock at 3.30 GHz compared to 3.00 GHz for the 5900HS.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread configuration?

A: Yes, both are 8-core, 16-thread parts. They also share the same AMD Socket FP6, PCIe Gen 3 support, and a 7 nm TSMC process node.

Q: What is the difference in thermal design power?

A: The 5900HS has a 35 W TDP, while the 4900H is rated at 54 W. This is a substantial difference given the 4900H has a higher base clock but lower boost clock.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The 5900HS has 16 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 8 MB shared L3 found in the 4900H. Both feature 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core.

Q: Is there a difference in memory bandwidth support?

A: Yes. The 5900HS supports DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, while the 4900H supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 with 51.2 GB/s. The 5900HS offers about 33% more bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS is built on the Zen 3 architecture (Cezanne), while the AMD Ryzen 9 4900H uses Zen 2 (Renoir). This generational shift is the primary driver of the performance gap observed in the benchmark data. Zen 3 introduced a unified 16 MB L3 cache design for the 5900HS, whereas the 4900H has two separate 4 MB L3 partitions totaling 8 MB. The larger, unified cache reduces latency when cores access shared data, which directly benefits single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads.

Transistor counts also differ: the 5900HS packs 10,700 million transistors on a 180 mm² die, versus 9,800 million on a 156 mm² die for the 4900H. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process, but the 5900HS uses the additional die area for the expanded cache and improved core design. The 4900H's smaller die with fewer transistors reflects its older Zen 2 microarchitecture.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 5900HS ships with Radeon Vega 8, while the 4900H has Radeon Graphics 512SP. Both are integrated solutions, but the naming and likely configuration suggest different GPU implementations. The 5900HS also lists a part number of 100-000000300, while the 4900H uses 100-000000353.

Memory support is another point of divergence. The 5900HS supports DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The 4900H supports both DDR4 and LPDDR4, but its bandwidth is capped at 51.2 GB/s. For memory-intensive tasks, the 5900HS has a clear theoretical advantage. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both are locked (multiplier not unlocked).

Release timing reflects the generational gap: the 5900HS launched on 2021-01-11, while the 4900H appeared on 2020-03-15. Both are currently marked as "Active" in production status. The 5900HS represents the newer design, which is consistent with its architectural improvements and higher benchmark scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers four Cinebench tests, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS wins all four. The biggest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 5900HS scores 236.5 versus 193 for the 4900H, a 22.5% lead. This is a substantial generational improvement, reflecting Zen 3's higher instructions per clock (IPC) over Zen 2. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap narrows to 14% (1475.5 vs 1294), but the 5900HS remains clearly ahead.

Multi-threaded results also favor the 5900HS, though by smaller margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 5900HS leads by 9.8% (12745.5 vs 11604). In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the difference is 5.9% (2041 vs 1926.5). The smaller multi-core gap compared to single-core suggests that the 4900H's higher base clock (3.30 GHz vs 3.00 GHz) partially compensates for its older architecture when all cores are active. However, the 5900HS still wins, likely due to its larger L3 cache and improved core efficiency.

Notably, the 4900H's higher TDP (54 W vs 35 W) does not translate into a victory in any benchmark. The 5900HS achieves higher scores while drawing less power, a sign of the Zen 3 efficiency gains. The 4900H's base clock advantage of 0.30 GHz is insufficient to overcome the architectural deficit.

The 5900HS also has additional benchmark data that the 4900H lacks: 3DMark tests across 2, 4, 8, 16, and max threads, plus a single-thread test. The 5900HS scores 6011 in 16-thread 3DMark, 5049 in 8-thread, 3133 in 4-thread, 1690 in 2-thread, and 871 in single-thread. These results show strong scaling from 2 to 16 threads, with the 8-thread score nearly matching the 16-thread score (5049 vs 6011), indicating good efficiency in the 8-core range.

The 4900H has Geekbench scores not available for the 5900HS: 6596 multi-core and 1309 single-core. Without a direct 5900HS Geekbench result, cross-comparison is not possible from the data. The recorded data shows the 5900HS wins 4 head-to-head tests, while the 4900H wins none.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The 5900HS has a base clock of 3.00 GHz, while the 4900H runs at 3.30 GHz, a 0.30 GHz difference in favor of the 4900H. Boost clocks reverse this: the 5900HS reaches 4.60 GHz, the 4900H tops out at 4.40 GHz. TDP is a major differentiator, with the 5900HS at 35 W and the 4900H at 54 W.

Architecture and codename differ: Zen 3 (Cezanne) for the 5900HS, Zen 2 (Renoir) for the 4900H. The 5900HS has 16 MB of shared L3 cache, the 4900H has 8 MB. Transistor count is 10,700 million for the 5900HS versus 9,800 million for the 4900H. Die size is 180 mm² for the 5900HS, 156 mm² for the 4900H.

Memory support: the 5900HS supports DDR4 only, while the 4900H supports DDR4 and LPDDR4. Memory bandwidth is 68.3 GB/s for the 5900HS, 51.2 GB/s for the 4900H. Integrated graphics: Radeon Vega 8 for the 5900HS, Radeon Graphics 512SP for the 4900H.

Release dates differ: 2021-01-11 for the 5900HS, 2020-03-15 for the 4900H. Part numbers are also different: 100-000000300 for the 5900HS, 100-000000353 for the 4900H. Both share the same socket (AMD Socket FP6), PCIe version (Gen 3), process node (7 nm), and foundry (TSMC). Neither supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data consistently favors the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS across all four head-to-head Cinebench tests. The largest advantage is 22.5% in single-core R15, followed by 14% in single-core R23. Multi-core margins are smaller but still positive: 9.8% in R23 and 5.9% in R15. The 5900HS achieves these wins while operating at a lower TDP (35 W vs 54 W), indicating superior power efficiency.

The 4900H's higher base clock (3.30 GHz) does not compensate for its older Zen 2 architecture. Its smaller L3 cache (8 MB vs 16 MB) and lower memory bandwidth (51.2 GB/s vs 68.3 GB/s) place it at a disadvantage in both lightly threaded and memory-bound workloads. The 4900H's only advantages are its higher base clock and support for LPDDR4 memory, but the benchmark data shows these do not translate into performance wins.

The average benchmark scores reflect the gap: the 5900HS has an average score of 3924, while the 4900H sits at 3820. Both sit at the 56th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are statistically similar in overall ranking, but the 5900HS is the stronger part within that tier. The nearest rivals for the 5900HS include the Intel Xeon E-2278GE (delta -0.4%), AMD Ryzen 5 4600GE (delta +0.5%), and AMD Ryzen 3 7330U (delta -0.9%). The 4900H's nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon E-2286M (delta -0.1%), Intel Core i7-8086K (delta +0.5%), and Intel Core i7-9700KF (delta +0.9%).

For users who prioritize single-threaded performance, the 5900HS is the clear choice, offering up to 22.5% better results. For multi-threaded workloads, the 5900HS still leads, though the margin narrows to around 6-10%. The 4900H might appeal to systems that need a higher base clock for sustained all-core operation, but the data shows the 5900HS wins even in those scenarios.

The 5900HS is the newer, faster, and more efficient processor. The 4900H remains a capable 8-core part, but it is outclassed by its successor in every measured benchmark. Given the 5900HS's lower TDP, it is also better suited for thinner, lighter laptops without sacrificing performance. The verdict is straightforward: the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS is the superior processor based on all recorded data.