AMD EPYC 7F72 vs AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark average?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F72 has a higher average benchmark score of 85,072 compared to the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX’s 81,103. The EPYC 7F72 also ranks at the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the Ryzen 9 ranks at the 95th percentile.

Q: How do these two processors compare in multi-threaded rendering workloads?

A: The EPYC 7F72 wins decisively in Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 44,829 versus 32,521 for the Ryzen 9 8940HX, a 37.8% advantage. However, in the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Ryzen 9 8940HX takes the lead at 5,355 versus 4,518, a 15.6% advantage.

Q: Which processor offers better single-thread performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX dominates in PassMark single-thread testing with a score of 3,874 versus 2,384 for the EPYC 7F72, a 38.5% advantage. The EPYC 7F72, however, wins both Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core tests with scores of 637 and 6,328 respectively.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F72 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX has a significantly higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz compared to the EPYC 7F72’s 3.70 GHz. The EPYC 7F72 does have a higher base clock at 3.20 GHz versus 2.40 GHz for the Ryzen 9.

Q: How does the EPYC 7F72 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The EPYC 7F72’s average score of 85,072 is 1.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus (84,003) and 1.5% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83,807). It also leads the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 2.4% and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 2.5%.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7F72 and AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX represent two distinct architectural generations and design philosophies from AMD. The EPYC 7F72 is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, fabricated on a 7 nm process node at TSMC. In contrast, the Ryzen 9 8940HX uses the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Dragon Range, built on a more advanced 5 nm process node, also at TSMC. This generation gap is immediately visible in transistor counts: the EPYC 7F72 integrates 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, while the Ryzen 9 8940HX packs 13,140 million transistors across a dual-die design measuring 2x 71 mm².

Cache hierarchies differ substantially between the two. The EPYC 7F72 features 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and a massive 192 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen 9 8940HX has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache. The EPYC’s 192 MB L3 cache is three times larger than the Ryzen’s, which is a defining characteristic for server workloads that benefit from large pooled caches. The Ryzen 9 compensates with double the L2 cache per core (1 MB versus 512 KB).

Memory architecture is another fundamental divide. The EPYC 7F72 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Ryzen 9 8940HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, providing 83.2 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 9 does not. PCIe capabilities differ as well: the EPYC 7F72 uses PCIe Gen 4, while the Ryzen 9 8940HX offers PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only). The Ryzen 9 includes integrated Radeon 610M graphics, whereas the EPYC 7F72 has no integrated graphics.

The market positioning is reflected in sockets and power targets. The EPYC 7F72 uses AMD Socket SP3 with a 240 W TDP, aimed at the Server/Workstation segment. The Ryzen 9 8940HX uses AMD Socket FL1 with a 55 W TDP, targeting the Mobile segment. The EPYC 7F72 was released on 2020-04-13, while the Ryzen 9 8940HX is a much newer part with a release date of 2025-04-22. The Ryzen 9 has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 7F72 is locked.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7F72 is the clear winner in heavy multi-threaded server-style workloads. It takes 9 of the 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The most striking wins come in Cinebench R23 multi-core (44,829 versus 32,521, a 37.8% advantage) and Cinebench R23 single-core (6,328 versus 1,917, a 230.1% advantage). The EPYC 7F72 also dominates PassMark physics with a score of 6,459 versus 2,104, a 207% lead, and PassMark find prime numbers at 498 versus 251, a 98.4% lead. Data encryption performance is another strong point, with the EPYC 7F72 scoring 56,261 versus 39,318, a 43.1% advantage.

The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX wins 6 of the 15 head-to-head benchmarks, with its strengths concentrated in single-threaded and math-intensive workloads. Its most significant victory is in PassMark single-thread performance, scoring 3,874 versus 2,384, a 38.5% advantage. The Ryzen 9 also takes PassMark integer math (189,221 versus 181,103, a 4.3% lead) and PassMark floating-point math (113,921 versus 108,437, a 4.8% lead). It wins PassMark extended instructions by a slim 1.8% margin (47,802 versus 46,936) and Cinebench R15 multi-core by 15.6% (5,355 versus 4,518).

For real-world use-case split: the EPYC 7F72 is the choice for database serving, virtualization, encryption-heavy workloads, and rendering tasks that scale across many threads and benefit from the massive 192 MB L3 cache. The Ryzen 9 8940HX, despite its mobile pedigree, excels at single-threaded responsiveness and raw math throughput, making it suitable for tasks like code compilation, spreadsheet calculations, and applications that favor high boost clocks (5.30 GHz) over sheer core count.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7F72 | AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 48 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 240 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | AMD Socket FL1 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Rome | Dragon Range |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | 13,140 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 2x 71 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 192 MB (shared) | 64 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4 | Gen 5, 28 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon 610M |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2020-04-13 | 2025-04-22 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data reveals a fascinating split between these two processors. The EPYC 7F72 wins the majority of comparisons (9 versus 6), but the Ryzen 9 8940HX wins the most recent and relevant single-thread test. Starting with the biggest EPYC 7F72 victories: Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 230.1% advantage (6,328 versus 1,917), which is an enormous gap. PassMark physics follows at 207% (6,459 versus 2,104), and PassMark find prime numbers at 98.4% (498 versus 251). Data encryption shows a 43.1% lead (56,261 versus 39,318), and Cinebench R23 multi-core demonstrates a 37.8% advantage (44,829 versus 32,521).

The Ryzen 9 8940HX counters with PassMark single-thread performance, where it leads by 38.5% (3,874 versus 2,384). Its other wins are narrower: Cinebench R15 multi-core at 15.6% (5,355 versus 4,518), PassMark floating-point math at 4.8% (113,921 versus 108,437), PassMark integer math at 4.3% (189,221 versus 181,103), and PassMark extended instructions at 1.8% (47,802 versus 46,936).

A key observation is the contradiction between Cinebench and PassMark single-thread results. The EPYC 7F72 wins both Cinebench R15 single-core (637 versus 292, a 118.2% lead) and Cinebench R23 single-core (6,328 versus 1,917, a 230.1% lead), yet loses PassMark single-thread by 38.5%. This suggests the Ryzen 9 8940HX’s high 5.30 GHz boost clock helps in certain single-thread workloads, while the EPYC 7F72’s architecture handles Cinebench’s rendering-specific single-thread load far better. The data also shows the EPYC 7F72 wins PassMark multithread by a modest 6.1% (52,740 versus 49,731), which is surprisingly close given the core count difference (24 versus 16). The Ryzen 9’s higher clocks and newer architecture close the gap in most multithreaded integer workloads, though the EPYC 7F72 still takes data compression by 24.2% (808,795 versus 650,984) and random string sorting by 35.9% (102,436 versus 75,381).

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload profile. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is the superior processor for server and workstation tasks that demand massive L3 cache (192 MB), eight-channel memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s), and ECC support. Its 37.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 43.1% lead in data encryption make it the right choice for rendering farms, database servers, and any environment where data integrity and memory throughput are paramount. The 207% advantage in PassMark physics further cements its position for simulation and scientific computing.

The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX, despite being a mobile part, wins the single-thread PassMark test by 38.5% and leads in integer and floating-point math by 4.3% and 4.8% respectively. Its 5.30 GHz boost clock and 55 W TDP make it the better option for power-constrained environments or applications that are latency-sensitive and favor high clock speeds over core counts. The 15.6% win in Cinebench R15 multi-core shows it can handle legacy rendering workloads well.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on whether the workload scales with core count and cache (choose the EPYC 7F72) or with clock speed and per-core efficiency (choose the Ryzen 9 8940HX). The EPYC 7F72’s 96th percentile ranking and 85,072 average score versus the Ryzen 9’s 95th percentile and 81,103 average score indicate the EPYC is the higher-performing part overall, but the Ryzen 9 8940HX’s wins in math and single-thread tests show it is not simply a lesser processor — it is a different tool for a different job. The EPYC 7F72 holds a 6.1% edge in PassMark multithread, but the Ryzen 9 8940HX’s nearest rivals (Intel Xeon w5-3535X at 0% delta, Intel Core i9-14900KS at 0% delta) show it competes with top-tier desktop and workstation silicon, while the EPYC 7F72 faces similar competition from Intel Core Ultra 9 parts (1.3% and 1.5% deltas).