SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX + AMD Radeon 740M

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

93 / 100
ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 7% of systems. Capable of 4K Ultra gaming and advanced rendering.

4K 60+ FPSVR ReadyRay Tracing

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
Well Balanced
CPU
98%
VS
GPU
88%
PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX

91,199 Benchmark Score
Top 2% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

AMD Radeon 740M

12,870 Benchmark Score
Top 12% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →

Market Position

How your build compares to others
Budget
0-30
Mid-Range
30-60
High-End
60-85
Enthusiast
85-100
Your Build

Game Performance Benchmarks

Real-world 4K FPS in popular titles
View All Games →

Performance Insights

Tips to maximize your system

Optimal Performance

Your system is in the top tier. You can run any modern game at maximum settings.

4K Gaming Ready

Consider a 4K 144Hz monitor to fully utilize your hardware capabilities.

Compatible Games See what you can play Compare CPUs Find upgrades Compare GPUs Find upgrades

Performance Tiers Explained

90-100

Ultimate

4K Ultra gaming, VR ready, ray tracing enabled, professional workloads

4K 60+ FPS VR Ready
70-89

High-End

1440p Ultra or 4K High settings, excellent for modern AAA titles

1440p Ultra 4K High
50-69

Mid-Range

1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, great value for most gamers

1080p Ultra 1440p Med
30-49

Entry Level

1080p Medium settings, suitable for eSports and older titles

1080p Med eSports
0-29

Legacy

Basic gaming, older titles, consider upgrading for modern games

720p-1080p Low Older Games

The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX is a 16-core, 32-thread mobile processor built on the Zen 5 architecture and codenamed Fire Range. It represents the flagship tier of AMD’s 9000 series for laptops, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The chip is manufactured on TSMC’s 4 nm process, packing 16,630 million transistors across a dual-die design with a combined die size of 2x 70.6 mm². This is a high-core-count part aimed at heavy multi-threaded workloads, and its benchmark results confirm that positioning: the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 37159 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tested, while the single-core score of 2174 is strong but less dominant relative to its multi-core showing. The data suggests a processor that excels when all cores are engaged, such as in rendering, compilation, or scientific simulations, rather than one that relies on extremely high per-thread speed.

The cache hierarchy is generous: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. This large L3 pool helps feed the 16 cores during data-intensive tasks, and the PassMark data compression score of 731998 underscores the chip’s ability to handle large, repeated data sets efficiently. The PassMark integer math score of 212598 and floating point math score of 136682 further indicate strong arithmetic throughput, though the prime number search score of 287 is notably low, suggesting that the chip’s branch prediction or memory latency characteristics may not favor that specific workload. The single-thread PassMark score of 4393 is respectable but not class-leading, which aligns with the Cinebench single-core result. In real workloads, this means the 9955HX will crush multi-threaded tasks like video encoding or 3D rendering, while single-threaded games or lightly threaded applications will see solid but not overwhelming performance. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 654, scores 90717 on average, just 0.5% behind the 9955HX’s 91199 average, indicating near-parity in overall CPU throughput; the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is 0.7% behind, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Xeon 6520P are both 2.8% ahead. These deltas are small, meaning the 9955HX is competitively placed in the upper echelon of processors, but not the absolute fastest in every metric.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Ryzen 9 9955HX uses AMD Socket FL1, a mobile-specific socket that ties the CPU to a laptop motherboard. This means the upgrade path is essentially non-existent in the traditional desktop sense; users cannot swap this processor for a newer one without replacing the entire system. The platform supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a maximum memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and ECC memory is supported, which is unusual for a mobile part and suggests a workstation-oriented use case. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 28 lanes available from the CPU, which is ample for a high-end laptop GPU and fast NVMe storage, though the integrated graphics option is a Radeon 610M, not the discrete GPU that would typically pair with this processor. The TDP is 55 W, which is relatively low for a 16-core part, indicating that the laptop’s cooling solution must be efficient to sustain boost clocks; the suggested PSU is not listed, but given the mobile context, power delivery is handled by the laptop’s battery and charger rather than a desktop PSU.

The memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s is a potential bottleneck for a 16-core CPU under heavy load, as the cores may outpace the memory subsystem in some tasks. For a sensible next upgrade, the data points to pairing this CPU with a faster discrete GPU, since the integrated Radeon 610M is clearly not meant for gaming or rendering. The platform’s PCIe Gen 5 support means a current-generation discrete GPU will have full bandwidth available. The ECC memory support and dual-channel DDR5 also make this a candidate for a mobile workstation, where data integrity and memory capacity matter more than raw gaming speed. However, because the socket is FL1 and the build class is laptop, the upgrade path is closed; users should plan to buy the entire system with the desired GPU and memory from the start. The low TDP of 55 W suggests that the laptop chassis can be relatively thin, but the 16-core design will still require robust cooling to avoid thermal throttling during sustained workloads.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 91199, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, which means it outperforms 96% of processors in the database. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 37159 is the headline number, and it is 0.5% higher than the Intel Xeon 654’s average score of 90717, indicating near-identical multi-threaded performance. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2174 is less impressive relative to rivals, but the PassMark single-thread score of 4393 shows decent per-core speed. The GPU, an AMD Radeon 740M, is a much weaker component: its average benchmark score is 12870, placing it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 10172 and Vulkan score of 15568 are modest, and the GPU’s nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W5100, which scores 12847, a 0.2% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 scores 12830, 0.3% behind, and the AMD Radeon RX 580 scores 12928, 0.4% ahead, meaning the 740M is in the middle of a tight pack of older or lower-tier discrete GPUs.

The combined percentile for this CPU+GPU pairing is 75, which is dragged down significantly by the GPU. The CPU carries the system, while the GPU is a bottleneck for graphics-intensive tasks. The data shows a clear disparity: the CPU is in the top 4% of all processors, while the GPU is only slightly above the median. This means the system will excel at CPU-bound workloads like code compilation, spreadsheet analysis, or 3D rendering that rely on the processor, but it will struggle with GPU-bound tasks like modern gaming at high settings or machine learning inference. The average benchmark score of 91199 for the CPU versus 12870 for the GPU highlights the imbalance; the CPU is roughly seven times more powerful relative to its peers than the GPU is relative to its peers. In a combined workload, the GPU will often be the limiting factor, capping frame rates or rendering speeds far below what the CPU could otherwise support.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data clearly identifies the GPU as the bottleneck in this pairing. The CPU’s 96th percentile performance is exceptional, while the GPU’s 53rd percentile is merely average, creating a massive performance gap. For gaming, the GPU will limit frame rates in virtually all scenarios, regardless of the CPU’s capability. The Radeon 740M’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 15568 is the only GPU benchmark available, and it suggests a level of graphics performance suitable for low-to-medium settings at 1080p, but not high-refresh or high-resolution gaming. Conversely, the CPU’s PassMark multithread score of 56171 means that CPU-bound tasks like physics simulations or video encoding will run at near-top speeds, leaving the GPU idle or underutilized. The FPS scaling in games will be dictated by the GPU, so even with a powerful CPU, frame rates will not improve beyond what the 740M can deliver.

In productivity tasks, the bottleneck shifts depending on the application. For 3D rendering using the CPU, the 9955HX will perform admirably, but if the rendering engine uses the GPU, the 740M will slow things down dramatically. The CPU’s Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 5905 and PassMark floating point score of 136682 suggest strong compute capability, but the GPU’s FP32 performance of 2.867 TFLOPS is low by modern standards, meaning GPU-accelerated workloads like video editing with effects will be constrained. The memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s is shared between CPU and GPU, which could cause contention in memory-heavy tasks, further exacerbating the bottleneck. The data implies that the system is best suited for CPU-centric workflows, where the GPU is only used for basic display output or light acceleration. For any task that demands GPU throughput, the 740M will be the limiting factor, and users should expect performance at the level of a mid-range GPU from several generations ago.

Who Should Build It

This pairing is for users who need extreme CPU performance in a laptop but have minimal graphics requirements. The 96th percentile CPU score makes it a candidate for software developers who compile large codebases, scientists running simulations, or financial analysts processing large datasets. The PassMark data compression score of 731998 and integer math score of 212598 indicate strong throughput for data-intensive workloads, while the ECC memory support points to a workstation role where data integrity is critical. Students in engineering or computer science fields would benefit from the CPU power for compiling and running complex models, but they would need to accept the GPU’s limitations for gaming or graphical applications. Small business workstations that run accounting software, database queries, or virtual machines would see excellent responsiveness, as the 16 cores can handle many concurrent tasks without slowdown.

Content creators who work with video editing or 3D rendering should be cautious: the CPU will handle encoding and rendering quickly, but the GPU will bottleneck any GPU-accelerated effects or previews. Gamers should avoid this pairing, as the 740M is not designed for modern games at high settings. The data suggests a target user who values CPU throughput above all else and is willing to pair the system with an external GPU via the PCIe connection for occasional graphics work. The 53rd percentile GPU means it is not completely useless, but it is not a gaming or professional graphics solution. For users who primarily run CPU-bound benchmarks or applications, this is a top-tier choice; for anyone needing balanced performance, the GPU is a severe compromise.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This scenario is poorly supported by the data. The Radeon 740M’s 53rd percentile score and low Vulkan benchmark of 15568 indicate that frame rates will be modest, likely below 60 FPS at 1080p with low settings in demanding titles. The CPU’s strength cannot compensate for the GPU’s weakness.

Streaming: CPU-based streaming using x264 encoding would perform well, given the 9955HX’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 37159, which can handle encoding while gaming. However, the GPU’s low performance means the gaming side will suffer, and the overall experience will be constrained by the 740M.

Video editing: The CPU will excel at rendering timelines and exporting final video, with the PassMark multithread score of 56171 indicating fast processing. However, GPU-accelerated effects, color grading, or real-time previews will be sluggish, and the data suggests a mixed experience where export times are short but interactive editing is limited.

3D rendering: CPU-based rendering engines will see near-top performance, as the 16 cores deliver a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 37159. GPU-based renderers will be dramatically slower, with the 740M’s FP32 throughput of 2.867 TFLOPS being a fraction of what discrete GPUs offer.

Software development: Compilation and testing will be fast, with the CPU’s PassMark integer math score of 212598 and data compression score of 731998 indicating strong code-building throughput. The GPU is irrelevant for most development tasks, making this a strong scenario for the pairing.

Student and office work: This is an overkill configuration for office tasks, but the CPU ensures smooth multitasking with many applications open. The PassMark single-thread score of 4393 provides snappy responsiveness, and the 16 cores handle background tasks effortlessly. The GPU is sufficient for document rendering and video playback.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact CPU+GPU combination, so all frame rate figures are estimates derived from the benchmark scores. The Radeon 740M’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 15568 and its 53rd percentile ranking suggest entry-level gaming performance. At 1080p with ultra settings, modern AAA games would likely run at 20-35 FPS, based on the GPU’s relative position to the AMD Radeon RX 580, which scores 0.4% higher on average. Esports titles like CS:GO or League of Legends might achieve 60-90 FPS at lower settings, but the data does not support high-refresh gaming. The CPU’s strong single-core score of 4393 helps with frame pacing, but the GPU will cap the frame rate in most scenarios. Users should treat any FPS expectation as highly approximate, as the lack of measured data means these are educated guesses from the GPU’s compute scores rather than verified results. For gaming, a discrete GPU is strongly recommended, as the 740M is not designed for this workload.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s multi-core performance relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 9 9955HX scores 91199 on average, which is 0.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon 654 and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392, but 2.8% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Xeon 6520P.

Q: Does the GPU support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 740M has 4 RT cores, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate API support indicates compatibility with ray tracing, though the low FP32 performance of 2.867 TFLOPS suggests ray tracing will be slow.

Q: What is the CPU’s memory bandwidth and capacity?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory for error correction.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the GPU in terms of benchmark percentiles?

A: The CPU is in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, creating a significant performance gap.

Q: Is this a desktop or laptop configuration?

A: The build class is laptop, and the CPU uses AMD Socket FL1, which is a mobile socket.

Q: What is the GPU’s average benchmark score and closest rival?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score is 12870, and its closest rival is the AMD FirePro W5100, which scores 12847, a 0.2% difference.

Q: What is the CPU’s base and boost clock?

A: The base clock is 2.50 GHz and the boost clock is 5.40 GHz.

GPU Analysis

The AMD Radeon 740M is an integrated GPU based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on the same 4 nm TSMC process as the CPU but using the Phoenix2 chip. It has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units, along with 4 RT cores for ray tracing. The base clock is 800 MHz, boosting to 2800 MHz, and the memory is system shared, meaning it uses the same DDR5 memory as the CPU, with bandwidth dependent on the system configuration. The FP32 performance is 2.867 TFLOPS, and FP16 is the same at 2.867 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio with no dedicated tensor cores. The pixel rate is 22.40 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 44.80 GTexel/s, which are low figures that confirm its entry-level positioning. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 12870, placing it in the 53rd percentile, and its Geekbench OpenCL score of 10172 and Vulkan score of 15568 are modest.

The GPU’s nearest rivals are all older discrete cards: the AMD FirePro W5100 scores 12847, the AMD Radeon Pro 455 scores 12831, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 scores 12830, all within 0.3% of the 740M. The AMD Radeon RX 580 scores 12928, just 0.4% ahead. This places the 740M in the performance tier of mid-range GPUs from 2012-2016, which means it is not suitable for modern gaming or GPU-accelerated rendering. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, which is sufficient for its bandwidth needs, but the system shared memory is a limitation, as it shares bandwidth with the CPU, potentially causing contention. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring software compatibility, but the hardware is too weak to leverage these APIs for high-end effects. For rendering, the 2.867 TFLOPS FP32 performance is a fraction of what discrete GPUs offer, and the 4 RT cores are more of a token feature than a practical one.

Build Overview

This is a laptop-class build pairing the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX with the AMD Radeon 740M integrated GPU. The CPU is a top-tier mobile processor, scoring in the 96th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 91199, while the GPU is a mid-range integrated solution, scoring in the 53rd percentile with an average of 12870. The combined percentile for the system is 75, reflecting the CPU’s dominance and the GPU’s mediocrity. This pairing is fundamentally unbalanced, with the CPU offering flagship-level performance for multi-threaded workloads and the GPU providing only entry-level graphics capability. The system is best described as a high-performance mobile workstation for CPU-intensive tasks, rather than a gaming or graphics laptop. The data indicates that the Ryzen 9 9955HX is the star of the show, and the Radeon 740M is a minimal addition that handles basic display output and light acceleration. Users should consider this build for software development, scientific computing, or data analysis, where the CPU’s 16 cores and 32 threads will be fully utilized. For any graphics-intensive workload, the system will underperform, and the GPU will be the limiting factor.