AMD Ryzen 5 230 vs AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS and the AMD Ryzen 5 230 present an unusual case in mobile computing: two processors that appear nearly identical on paper yet deliver surprisingly divergent results in certain workloads. Both are 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 parts on the 4 nm TSMC node, built for the AMD Socket FP8, with matching 3.50 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost clocks and a 28 W TDP. The data reveals a split personality—the 8640HS dominates in 13 of 15 head-to-head tests, while the 230 wins the two most demanding Cinebench 2024-era workloads by over 30%. This contradiction between synthetic multi-core stress tests and broader application benchmarks demands a closer look at what each chip is actually optimizing for.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS holds the higher average benchmark score at 26106, compared to 25782 for the AMD Ryzen 5 230. This places the 8640HS 1.3% ahead overall, and both sit at the 78th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 230 is the clear winner here, scoring 17857 versus 11486 for the 8640HS—a 35.7% advantage. This is the largest delta between the two in any benchmark.

Q: Is the 8640HS faster in single-threaded PassMark tests?

A: Yes, but only marginally. The 8640HS scores 3584 in PassMark single-thread, while the 230 scores 3558, a 0.7% difference. Both chips share identical clock speeds, so this gap is minimal.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each chip according to the data?

A: The 8640HS sits closest to the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U (0.3% lower average score) and the Intel Core i9-11900KF (0.4% higher). The 230 is nearest to the Intel Core i7-11700K (0.1% lower) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 5655GE (0.4% lower).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and PCIe specifications?

A: Yes. Both support DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and both feature PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU only.

Q: Which chip has more benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS wins 13 of the 15 head-to-head tests, while the AMD Ryzen 5 230 wins only 2—specifically the Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core tests.

Architecture Differences

At the architectural level, the two processors are effectively twins. Both are built on TSMC's 4 nm process node, feature 6 Zen 4 cores and 12 threads, and share the Hawk Point codename with the same "Ryzen 5 (Zen 4 (Hawk Point))" generation label. The transistor count is identical at 25,000 million, and the die size matches at 178 mm². Cache hierarchies are unchanged: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3.

The integrated graphics are the same Radeon 760M, and both chips are classified as mobile parts with active production status. The only notable difference in the silicon itself is the part number—the 8640HS lists three variants (100-000001373 for FP7r2, 100-000001380 for FP7, and 100-000001358 for FP8), while the 230 has a single part number (100-000001726). Release dates differ by roughly 13 months, with the 8640HS launching on December 5, 2023, and the 230 on January 5, 2025.

Given the identical core configuration, clocks, cache, and process node, the architecture alone cannot explain the benchmark discrepancies. The data suggests that firmware, power management tuning, or silicon binning differences between the two releases may be responsible for the divergent Cinebench results. The 230's newer production date could indicate a revised power delivery profile that favors sustained multi-core boosts, while the 8640HS appears tuned for more consistent performance across a wider range of workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking finding is the complete reversal in Cinebench results. The 230 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 35.7% (17857 vs 11486) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 32.1% (2521 vs 1711). These are enormous margins for processors with identical clock speeds and core counts. The 230 also posts a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 7499 and single-core of 1058, though no comparable R20 data exists for the 8640HS in the pack.

Outside of Cinebench, the 8640HS takes every PassMark test. The largest win is in find prime numbers, where it leads 70 to 66, a 6.1% advantage. Random string sorting follows with a 5% edge (27316 vs 26019). Data compression shows a 3.6% lead (226544 vs 218588), and data encryption is 2% ahead (13551 vs 13280). The 8640HS also wins extended instructions (15855 vs 15618, +1.5%), floating point math (39725 vs 38993, +1.9%), integer math (68173 vs 67257, +1.4%), multi-thread (19889 vs 19411, +2.5%), and physics (970 vs 958, +1.3%). In Cinebench R15, the 8640HS leads multi-core 1845 to 1799 (+2.6%) and single-core 268 to 253 (+5.9%). PassMark single-thread shows a narrow 0.7% edge for the 8640HS (3584 vs 3558).

The pattern is clear: the 230 excels specifically in Cinebench's rendering workloads, while the 8640HS dominates in nearly every other measurable category. This suggests the 230's power management may prioritize burst performance for short, intensive tasks, whereas the 8640HS maintains a more balanced performance envelope across diverse instruction mixes.

The Verdict

For users whose primary workload is Cinebench-style rendering, the AMD Ryzen 5 230 is the obvious choice—its 35.7% multi-core and 32.1% single-core advantages are decisive. However, the data overwhelmingly favors the 8640HS for general-purpose computing. With wins in 13 of 15 benchmarks, including all PassMark tests and both Cinebench R15 tests, the 8640HS delivers more consistent performance across compression, encryption, math, sorting, and physics workloads. The 8640HS also holds a higher average benchmark score (26106 vs 25782) and ranks in the same 78th percentile of all CPUs.

The identical specifications make this a firmware or silicon-quality question rather than an architectural one. The 230's newer release date hints at a possible refinement in boost behavior, but the 8640HS's broader benchmark dominance suggests it is the more reliable all-rounder. Buyers who prioritize rendering benchmarks should pick the 230; everyone else should favor the 8640HS based on the data.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ only in a few fields. The 8640HS belongs to the "8000 series" and carries a part number with three socket variants (FP7r2, FP7, and FP8), while the 230 has no series designation and a single part number for FP8. Release dates differ: December 5, 2023 for the 8640HS versus January 5, 2025 for the 230. The 8640HS also has a null launch MSRP field, as does the 230, so no pricing information is available in the data.

All other specifications are identical: 6 cores, 12 threads, 3.50 GHz base, 4.90 GHz boost, 28 W TDP, AMD Socket FP8, Zen 4 architecture, Hawk Point codename, 4 nm process, TSMC foundry, 25,000 million transistors, 178 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, 16 MB shared L3, DDR5 memory support, dual-channel bus, 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC support, PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Radeon 760M integrated graphics, mobile market segment, active production status, and locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS: This chip wins in data compression (226544 vs 218588), data encryption (13551 vs 13280), extended instructions (15855 vs 15618), find prime numbers (70 vs 66), floating point math (39725 vs 38993), integer math (68173 vs 67257), multi-thread PassMark (19889 vs 19411), physics (970 vs 958), random string sorting (27316 vs 26019), and single-thread PassMark (3584 vs 3558). It also wins both Cinebench R15 tests (multi-core 1845 vs 1799, single-core 268 vs 253). These results make it the better choice for general productivity, security-related tasks like encryption, and everyday multi-threaded applications that don't rely purely on Cinebench-style rendering.

AMD Ryzen 5 230: This chip wins decisively in Cinebench R23 multi-core (17857 vs 11486) and single-core (2521 vs 1711), with additional R20 scores of 7499 multi-core and 1058 single-core that have no 8640HS counterpart in the data. The 35.7% and 32.1% deltas respectively are substantial enough to recommend the 230 for content creation workflows that use Cinebench as a proxy for 3D rendering performance. Users running Blender, Cinema 4D, or similar render engines that scale with Cinebench scores would see meaningful gains with the 230, despite its losses elsewhere.