The AMD Ryzen 7 3750H and Intel Core i7-9750H share a similar naming scheme, but what are the actual differences between them? In this detailed comparison we’ll look at everything from gaming, 3D rendering, video exporting, power draw, thermals, price differences and more to help you decide which CPU you should get in your next laptop.
Let’s start off with the differences in specs before getting into the benchmarks. The Intel i7-9750H has 6 cores 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H has 4 cores 8 threads. The Intel chip has higher clock speeds and a higher TDP, however the AMD chip is based on their 12nm Zen+ architecture, while Intel’s using 14nm++, and Intel also has more cache. The memory in the Intel platform is DDR4-2666, while the 3750H is capped to DDR4-2400.
It’s not really fair to compare these as the Intel chip has a higher core count and better boost speeds, it’s going to win, however I’ve decided to do this comparison as I still get asked this question a lot, either because two laptops are available with either CPU for a similar price, or because of the similar looking product names.
With the 9750H performance is going to depend entirely on the power limit of the laptop it’s in, whereas all 3750H machines I’ve tested so far don’t seem to go above their 35 watt limit. Although the 9750H is listed as a 45w part on paper, in CPU only workloads I’ve seen many laptops boost this limit up to 60w to offer better performance, including the one I’m testing here.
See also: 1650 ti vs 1650
Due to this, I’ve tested the 9750H twice, with a 45w stock configuration and at 60w as more of a best case result. With that in mind let’s get into those results.
We’ll start off by looking at some applications such as rendering and video editing, followed by gaming performance afterwards.
Let’s start with Cinebench R20. I’ve got the Ryzen 7 3750H down the bottom, Intel i7-9750H at the stock 45 watt limit in the middle, and the higher 60 watt result at the top. In this test, the 9750H is winning multicore as you’d expect, it’s got two extra cores.
The 45 watt configuration was 35% faster than the 3750H, and a massive 70% faster with the 60 watt limit. The Intel chip saw a fair improvement in the single core result too, where even the 45w test was 10% faster than the 3750H.
I’ve also tested Cinebench R15 as many people still use it, so these numbers can be used for comparison. The stock i7 at 45w was 44% faster in multicore, and 20% faster in single core over the Ryzen chip, and then at 60 watts it’s got a 63% lead in multicore with much less of a difference in single core at the higher power limit in this test.
I’ve run the BMW and Classroom benchmarks with blender, and this is another test which benefits from additional cores, so it’s no surprise that the i7 is coming out ahead here. The i7 completes both tasks just over 30% faster at the stock 45w limit, and if allowed to run at 60w then it’s now 50% faster than the 3750H.
I’ve used Adobe Premiere to export the same 4K laptop video, unfortunately I didn’t test this one at 60w however the Ryzen processor gets absolutely slaughtered in this test as the Intel option benefits from quicksync in this specific workload.
I’ve also used the warp stabilizer effect in Adobe Premiere which basically uses a single core to smooth out a clip. It was interesting that the higher 60w limit with the 9750H resulted in it consistently taking a few seconds longer, however at stock it was just 9% faster than the 3750H.
Handbrake was used to convert a 4K video file to 1080p, and then a separate 1080p file to 720p. This is another test that benefits greatly from CPU cores. The stock 45w 9750H was completing the 4K transcode 40% faster than the 3750H, then a massive 63% faster in the 1080p to 720p test, while the 60w limit allowed for yet higher speeds.
The V-Ray benchmark uses the CPU to render out a scene, so yet another task that’s typically faster the more cores you have. This time the i7 was 54% faster than the Ryzen 7 at 45w, and a massive 78% faster once boosted up to 60w.
Another benchmark that renders out a scene with the processor less of a difference between the two i7 results, however even the stock result was 60% faster when compared to the Ryzen processor, a nice result considering the 50% core increase.
I’ve used 7-Zip to test compression and decompression speeds. The decompression speeds saw a modest 41% improvement with the i7 at 45w, but a way higher 80% faster speed when it came to compression, this task in particular seems much better with the Intel option.
VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds. There was basically no difference to the Intel laptop between the different power limits, however it was still over 55% faster in this task when compared to the Ryzen option.
GeekBench also produced similar results with the Intel chip regardless of power limit however it was still 68% ahead of the AMD chip in multicore, and there was even a decent 27% improvement to single core in this test.
Here’s a summary of all of the applications just tested. On average over these tests, the Intel i7-9750H with 45w limit was 53% faster than the Ryzen 7 3750H. That overall percentage isn’t too useful though as it includes both single and multicore tests, plus it’s being held up by that massive Adobe Premiere improvement which was due to the software’s support of quicksync.
If we look at the results without that large Adobe difference the 9750H was nearly 43% faster on average.
These are the differences when comparing the i7-9750H with the 60 watt limit again its 53% faster than the 3750H and that’s without the Premiere difference, so quite a fair difference with some big jumps there depending on the workload.
I want to note that many i7-9750H laptops do boost the power limit well above 45w in CPU only workloads like these, 60w isn’t uncommon, the 45w comparison is more of a worst case and it’s still demolishing the 3750H.
When we look at the total power drawn from the wall with the core heavy Blender test running the i7 with the 45w limit wasn’t using too much more power than the Ryzen option, just 11% more power for more than a 30% performance improvement. When running the i7 with the 60w limit though it’s a different story, the power draw completely blows out, and it’s easy to see why many laptops only permit this limit in CPU only workloads where the discrete graphics are idle.
These are the average clock speeds while running the same blender benchmark. Interestingly the 3750H had the highest speed, but these numbers aren’t really comparable due to architecture differences.
Likewise the temperatures are also pretty useless as both laptops tested have completely different cooling solutions, but hey if I don’t include this information people will complain.
With that stuff out of the way, let’s get into the gaming results. For this testing I’ve used a different laptop for the 9750H compared to the numbers we just went through as it was what I had available at the time with the same GTX 1660 Ti GPU. For the AMD side I’ve continued to use the ASUS TUF FX505DU. For the Intel side I’ve used my Lenovo Y540 with hybrid mode enabled, and in balanced mode which caps the CPU power limit to 45 watts when the GPU is active.
Testing was done with the same Windows updates and Nvidia drivers in use, so these results should be about as apples to apples as possible. Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested with the game’s built in benchmark tool. I’ve got the Intel i7-9750H in the top purple bar, and the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H below in the red bar. I’ve tested all setting presets available for each game, which are labelled along the left. In this game the Intel chip was 10% faster than the AMD one at max settings, however at low settings there was a larger 35% difference, presumably as we’re more CPU bound at lower setting levels. Battlefield V was tested in campaign mode running through the same section of the game on both machines. Again the i7 was ahead at all setting levels, with a higher 15% average FPS at the highest ultra setting preset, but this increases significantly at low settings to a 36% higher average frame rate, though there were less changes between 1% low performance. Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested using the built in benchmark, again this test was following the trend of bigger differences between the two as we step down the setting levels. Even at max settings though, the i7 was offering a 20% higher average frame rate, rising to a much higher 48% boost at lowest settings. Apex Legends was tested by running through the same section of the map in all instances. There was less of a difference at lower settings in this game because both were able to hit the 144 FPS frame cap at times. With all settings at maximum, the i7 was 16% faster compared to the AMD option, though realistically above 100 FPS maxed out is still very playable. Call of Duty Modern Warfare was also tested with maximum or minimum settings, and the difference in average FPS was on the lower side out of the games tested, just 6% faster at max settings on the i7. There’s a larger 11% higher 1% low at max settings from the i7, and the 1% low was 30% higher at minimum settings. Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested using the games benchmark, and as a title that I’ve noted to be more CPU bound, there’s a fair 18% improvement to average FPS at max settings. At all other setting levels, the 1% low performance is near even the average that the 3750H was able to offer. Control was tested running through the same area of the game on both machines. At minimum settings there was a large 36% higher average FPS from the i7, but then at max settings the difference between the two is far lower comparitely, with the i7 now just 6% faster in terms of average frame rate. Borderlands 3 was tested with the built in benchmark and follows the same pattern as many other titles tested, in that there’s a larger difference between the two at the lower setting levels. At very low settings, the i7 was 35% faster than the Ryzen 7, and this lowers to a 12% higher average FPS at max settings. It’s worth noting the huge gains to 1% low performance between very low and medium with the Intel option, which aren’t too far behind the averages from the 3750H. Fortnite was tested using the replay feature, and I’ve tested the exact same replay on each laptop. At minimum settings there’s a massive difference, the i7 laptop was 56% faster in terms of average FPS, and even the 1% low result was very close to the average from the Ryzen chip. The gap narrows in as we step up to higher setting levels though, with epic settings just 12.5% faster with the Intel processor. Ghost Recon Breakpoint was tested using the games benchmark tool. Once more the 9750H is winning in most tests, but wait! Interestingly the 3750H was consistently ahead when it came to 1% low performance with the ultra and ultimate presets. I mean it’s not far ahead, but it was interesting that it came out ahead at all given all previous results. Similar interesting results were seen in The Witcher 3, the 1% low between low and high settings was notably ahead with the 3750H. In any case, the averages are still a fair amount ahead with the i7, which was 18% faster in this regard at low settings, and 15% ahead at ultra where the 1% low was now also back in front. Rainbow Six Siege was tested using the games benchmark tool with the latest Vulkan option. Like some of the other games, huge gains with the i7 at the lowest settings. Even the 1% low was ahead of the average from the 3750H, while the average FPS on the i7 was 45% ahead. This lowers to a 13% higher average frame rate with the i7 at ultra settings, so much lower comparatively but still a good lead. CS:GO was tested with the Ulletical FPS benchmark, and is a game that really cares about CPU power, so it was no surprise that this game saw one of the largest differences out of all titles tested on the i7. There was a massive 78% higher average FPS with both laptops at minimum settings, and it was still 68% faster with all settings maxed out. Dota 2 is another game that typically relies more on CPU power than GPU. Interestingly the performance gap widens as we step up through the setting levels, a behaviour I’ve seen from this game before in other testing which is a bit different to the other titles tested. Anyway at minimum settings the i7 was 17% faster than the Ryzen 7, but at max settings the i7 was now 71% faster. Overwatch was tested playing in the practice range, and while this performs better than actual gameplay it allows me to more accurately perform the exact same test run, which is ideal for a comparison like this. There was less than a 7% higher average FPS with the i7 at the highest epic settings, while minimum settings saw a bigger difference with the i7 now 27% faster. I’ll also note that the 1% low from the 3750H was ahead of the i7 at epic and ultra settings, so I think that’s 3 games now where this interesting behaviour was observed at higher presets.
These are the differences to average FPS over all 15 games tested. On average with the highest setting levels in use, the Intel i7-9750H was almost 21% faster than the Ryzen 7 3750H. As we can see here, the results really vary by game. Those huge CS:GO and Dota 2 results are definitely helping raise the average, but for the most part there’s a decent improvement to be had with the i7 processor.
As we saw throughout the games, there was generally a larger difference with the lowest possible settings. At minimum in these same titles the 9750H was now 35% faster in terms of average FPS when compared to the 3750H. This is simply because generally lower settings are more sensitive to CPU performance. To be fair I doubt you’d need to play many if any of these games at lower settings with the 1660 Ti I’ve used here, but both these processors are also available with lower tier graphics like the 1050 or 1650, so CPU choice will probably matter more there..
I really want to stress that with the GTX 1660 Ti, the Ryzen 7 3750H is still definitely capable of offering a great gaming experience even with higher setting levels. I’m not saying it’s a bad option, but compared to the i7-9750H it’s clearly not as good, so let’s take a look at some price differences to see if it’s worth paying more money for the i7.
Also check out: i5 9300h vs i7 9750h
The ASUS TUF FX505DU I tested here goes for about $900 USD, granted this one has half the memory so it’s probably a bit more for 16gb. The Y540 costs more than other i7 options in the US, so compared to the Acer Helios 300 at $1100 USD, that’s 22% more money, and not to mention the Helios is undervolted and overclocked out of the box so the difference would be even greater than what I’ve shown in this video. That’s another benefit for the Intel platform too, undervolting isn’t currently an option with the Ryzen 3000 series.
Anyway, 22% more money for an on average 21% higher frame rate in games at max settings, 34% higher average FPS at minimum settings, and about 43% better performance in other applications without even considering the higher powered 60 watt configuration of the 9750H? Sounds to me like it’s well worth saving the extra money for the i7, at least that’s what I’d do unless I really can’t get the extra $200 or so.
So to summarise, the Ryzen 7 3750H doesn’t look good when compared to the Intel i7-9750H. In gaming there’s less of a difference compared to the applications we looked at first, granted there is still a nice boost to be had. That said, even a last gen i5-8300H which also has 4 cores 8 threads comfortably beats it too. Let’s hope the upcoming launch of AMD’s Ryzen 4000 mobile processors offers better competition, I’ve got my numbers ready to compare. The 3750H is in general cheaper than the i7, but that’s not always the case. Depending on the price, a Ryzen based laptop could be attractive, however if you can justify a bit more for the i7, as we’ve seen, it does have a lot more to offer, especially if you’re doing anything that performs better with more cores. Let me know which of these two CPUs you’d pick and why down in the comments.