Ryzen 7 7735U vs Ryzen 5 2600X

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 2600X
2018
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
8.76
Ryzen 7 7735U
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 28 Watt
13.32
+52.1%

Ryzen 7 7735U outperforms Ryzen 5 2600X by an impressive 52% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 7735U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking865556
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.20no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5no data
Power efficiency8.7345.02
Architecture codenameZen+ (2018−2019)Rembrandt-U Refresh (2023)
Release date19 April 2018 (6 years ago)4 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 7735U 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads1216
Base clock speed3.6 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed4.25 GHz4.75 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier36no data
L1 cache96K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography12 nm6 nm
Die size192 mm2208 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data95 °C
Number of transistors4,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 7735U 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
SocketAM4FP7
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt28 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 7735U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHAMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
Precision Boost 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 7735U are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 7735U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR5
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-AMD Radeon 680M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 7735U.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes2020

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 2600X 8.76
Ryzen 7 7735U 13.32
+52.1%

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 2600X 13907
Ryzen 7 7735U 21166
+52.2%

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 2600X 1248
Ryzen 7 7735U 1779
+42.5%

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 2600X 5289
Ryzen 7 7735U 7749
+46.5%

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 2600X 4958
Ryzen 7 7735U 6207
+25.2%

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 2600X 29954
Ryzen 7 7735U 32220
+7.6%

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 2600X 4.62
+12.1%
Ryzen 7 7735U 5.18

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 2600X 15
Ryzen 7 7735U 19
+33.6%

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 2600X 1341
Ryzen 7 7735U 1698
+26.6%

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 2600X 163
Ryzen 7 7735U 234
+43.6%

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 2600X 1.81
Ryzen 7 7735U 2.8
+54.7%

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 2600X 8
Ryzen 7 7735U 10.2
+27.5%

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 2600X 81
Ryzen 7 7735U 91
+12.5%

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 2600X 207
Ryzen 7 7735U 229
+10.2%

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 2600X 4599
Ryzen 7 7735U 4904
+6.6%

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 5 2600X 6094
Ryzen 7 7735U 8203
+34.6%

Blender(-)

Ryzen 5 2600X 352
+14.3%
Ryzen 7 7735U 308

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 5 2600X 1145
Ryzen 7 7735U 1522
+33%

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 5 2600X 4293
Ryzen 7 7735U 5579
+30%

7-Zip

Ryzen 5 2600X 33222
Ryzen 7 7735U 48972
+47.4%

WebXPRT 3

Ryzen 5 2600X 186
Ryzen 7 7735U 240
+29%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.76 13.32
Recency 19 April 2018 4 January 2023
Physical cores 6 8
Threads 12 16
Chip lithography 12 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 28 Watt

Ryzen 7 7735U has a 52.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 239.3% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 7735U is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 2600X in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 2600X is a desktop processor while Ryzen 7 7735U is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 7735U, 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 2600X
Ryzen 5 2600X
AMD Ryzen 7 7735U
Ryzen 7 7735U

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.


4.4 2320 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 2600X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 104 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 7735U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 2600X or Ryzen 7 7735U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.