Wednesday, March 26th 2025
AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D Laptop CPU With 3D V-Cache Tops Performance Charts in Early Benchmarks
The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D is an upcoming laptop CPU with 64 MB of L3 3D V-Cache paired with 16 Zen 5 cores that clock at up to a claimed 5.4 GHz. While the 995HX3D hasn't even received an official retail launch date aside from "H1 2025," tech publication Hot Hardware has published some early benchmarks of the new Ryzen 9 CPU, showing off some impressive performance chops that should translate to excellent gaming performance. The test system in question was the MSI Raider A18HX, which pairs the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D with up to 64 GB of RAM and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 or 5090. According to CPU-Z screenshots taken by Hot Hardware, the 9955HX3D is configured to run at 55 W, although the CPU is capable of up to 75 W TDP. Hot Hardware noted that the 9955HX3D clocked up to 5194.88 MHz on two cores, while one core sat at 5139,98 MHz, and the rest of the cores all sat well below the 2 GHz mark when not loaded.
While Hot Hardware was unable to run direct gaming benchmarks due to release embargoes, the publication did run Cinebench, PCMark 10, and Geekbench, including Geekbench AI. While performance across the board was impressive, with the 9955HX3D scoring a massive 2094 in Cinebench 2024 multicore, which is 20% higher than the next CPU on Hot Hardware's benchmark charts, the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX from the ASUS ROG Strix Scar 17. Geekbench 6 and UL PCMark 10 tell a somewhat different story, though, with the 9955HX3D scoring slightly behind the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 in both benchmarks. Geekbench 6 was particularly peculiar, since the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 outperformed the 9955HX3D by as much as 48%. The 9955HX3D still beats out all the other chips on the Geekbench 6 test, though, especially in multicore testing, where the next-fastest chip on the chart was the Apple M3 Max. Despite the mixed results when it comes to multicore benchmarks, though, the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D managed to come out on top in every test where single-core performance was directly tested.
In Cinebench 2024, the 9955HX3D scored an impressive 129 points in the single-core score, which is only outdone by Apple's M3 Max SoC in the MacBook Pro 16. In Geekbench 6, the 9955HX3D scored 3165 points, which just barely makes it faster than the trailing Apple M3 Max, which scores 3161 points in the same test. The solid mix of high single- and multi-core performance suggests that the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D will be a fast gaming CPU when it eventually hits shelves in gaming notebooks later this year. Things also look promising when it comes to regular productivity workflows, which is an area where X3D CPUs previously suffered due to lower core clocks compared to their non-X3D counterparts.
Source:
Hot Hardware
While Hot Hardware was unable to run direct gaming benchmarks due to release embargoes, the publication did run Cinebench, PCMark 10, and Geekbench, including Geekbench AI. While performance across the board was impressive, with the 9955HX3D scoring a massive 2094 in Cinebench 2024 multicore, which is 20% higher than the next CPU on Hot Hardware's benchmark charts, the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX from the ASUS ROG Strix Scar 17. Geekbench 6 and UL PCMark 10 tell a somewhat different story, though, with the 9955HX3D scoring slightly behind the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 in both benchmarks. Geekbench 6 was particularly peculiar, since the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 outperformed the 9955HX3D by as much as 48%. The 9955HX3D still beats out all the other chips on the Geekbench 6 test, though, especially in multicore testing, where the next-fastest chip on the chart was the Apple M3 Max. Despite the mixed results when it comes to multicore benchmarks, though, the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D managed to come out on top in every test where single-core performance was directly tested.
33 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D Laptop CPU With 3D V-Cache Tops Performance Charts in Early Benchmarks
The first mobile Ryzen generation was a huge backfire as AMD attempted to shift driver responsibility to OEMs and ended up pissing them off. The 5000s were competitive but I'd argue the 7000s were the first gen that was vastly superior since the days of Athlon 64. Even then, lunar lake is producing ARM like power usage figures and Arrowlake isn't worthless in mobile (or desktop, frankly). AMD still has some work to gain mobile dominance like they have on desktop, they have iGPU performance locked down though.
It makes no sense, if supply was the issue we wouldn't just see a lack of AMD designs. There'd be shortages of existing AMD laptop SKUs. Yet we don't see that.
It kind of ignores how chip allocation is done in the industry. TSMC builds out capacity to meet wafer allocation contracts. If AMD wants more supply, all it needs to do is agree to buy more a few years in advance. AMD has had plenty of time to do so at this point. TSMC only dynamically allocates the extra supply it has beyond any contractually obligated capacity to each of it's customers. Companies like AMD can dip into this extra supply if it needs to and is able to outbid other companies but it will always get the amount of wafers it signed for on it's wafer supply agreement.
Having the CPU consume less power is useful in thermally constrained systems as you can pump more power into the GPU if needed.
9000 series will widen the gap but yeah, don't expect too many design wins but certainly more than the 7945HX3D's.
Just the first test I came across
www.anandtech.com/show/20010/the-asus-rog-strix-scar-17-2023-laptop-review-ryzen-9-7945hx3d-with-3d-v-cache-impresses/6
The 7940hs has 250% the battery life of the 7945hx3d while the latter has a 40% bigger battery.
And another, hx3d is literally at the bottom
With the transition to 7nm in the 4xxx series, AMD pulled far ahead, delivering octa-core CPUs with iGPU and greater efficiency than its competition, which was stuck with the mediocre 4-core Ice Lake. Intel only managed to compete on equal footing again with Lunar Lake (3nm), but this platform is too complex and expensive to be truly competitive, and software issues remain a concern.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Not sure why. My post is entirely factually accurate. Essentially it matches it's intel counterpart while consuming near about half the power and destroys it in gaming. I was just wording it more politely lol
Given that AMD primarily sells chips, those charts and your statements cannot both be correct. You cannot see those large increases in revenue without AMD also securing large increases in supply.
And again, looks at the instances in which you see AMD product unavailability. You see it with the 9000 series where AMD is outselling last gen by 10x and in the 9800X3D that alone outsells Intel's entire lineup. You aren't seeing it in laptops.
AMD doesn't have unlimited supply sure but I see no evidence that supports the other guy's claim that AMD doesn't have the throughput to increase it's marketshare in the lapotop space at a more rapid pace. There is definitely an element of the old boys club going on between the OEM and Intel.You would not buy a 7945HX3D laptop and use all those cores without plugging it in. It's designed to be a mobile workstation, you go to your hotel and plug it in while it runs encodes or while you work on it.
If you want power efficiency, you'd get the 12 core AI MAX from AMD, although you are still going to want to plug it in for heavy work. There isn't a high-end laptop out there that will last long when maxing it out.
7945HX3D uses 30w at idle but it's also the highest performing mobile CPU on the market and also the most efficient when fully loaded. You are paying to have a tiny portable desktop.
13950HX is pretty much the same as 13980HX so might as well take that data point. And here's a snip from the first paragraph "but its efficiency was the real star of the show. While the Intel CPUs consume upwards of 170 watts, the Ryzen 9 7945HX offers comparable performance while only using 80 - 100 watts". Not sure where you are getting your 320w from, but dude have a look at the data you don't need to wildly extrapolate anything.
The graphs are there to see. Have a look at power scaling which makes intel look even worse.