AMD Ryzen 5 7400F vs AMD Ryzen 5 8645HS Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a one-sided verdict: the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F wins every single recorded head-to-head comparison against the AMD Ryzen 5 8645HS. Across 15 benchmark tests, the 7400F emerges victorious in all of them, with the largest margins appearing in multi-core and single-core rendering workloads.

The most dramatic difference appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 7400F scores 21765 against the 8645HS's 13220. That is a 39.3% advantage, a massive gap for two processors that share the same Zen 4 architecture and the same 6-core, 12-thread configuration. The single-core Cinebench R23 result is even more lopsided in relative terms: the 7400F records 3072 while the 8645HS manages 1714, a 44.2% deficit. These results indicate that the 8645HS is operating under significant constraints, likely thermal or power related, given that both chips share the same core architecture.

Cinebench R15 tells a similar but less extreme story. In multi-core, the 7400F scores 2193 versus 2094 for the 8645HS, a 4.5% lead. In single-core, the 7400F posts 309 against 270, a 12.6% advantage. The R15 tests show a much narrower gap than R23, which suggests that the R23 workload amplifies the differences between the two chips, possibly due to sustained load behavior.

PassMark results follow the same pattern, though the margins vary widely by workload. The largest PassMark gap is in find prime numbers, where the 7400F scores 191 versus 75 for the 8645HS, a 60.7% difference. This is an extraordinary margin and indicates a major advantage in integer-heavy prime calculation workloads. Physics shows a 34% gap in favor of the 7400F, with scores of 1660 versus 1095. Multithread performance favors the 7400F by 11.9%, with scores of 25645 versus 22586.

Other PassMark tests show more modest leads. Floating point math is nearly tied: 45799 for the 7400F versus 44833 for the 8645HS, a 2.1% edge. Integer math is similarly close, with the 7400F ahead by 2.8% (74745 versus 72640). Single-thread performance is almost identical, with the 7400F scoring 3689 versus 3653, a 1% lead. Data compression shows an 8.5% advantage for the 7400F (289999 versus 265483), while data encryption is 6.7% ahead (16712 versus 15588). Extended instructions favor the 7400F by 8% (21747 versus 20003), and random string sorting shows a 9.5% gap (35096 versus 31748).

Overall, the recorded data shows the 7400F holding an average benchmark score of 32750, while the 8645HS sits slightly higher at 33244. This is an interesting inversion: despite losing every head-to-head test, the 8645HS has a higher average score in the database because it includes a broader set of benchmark entries. Both processors sit at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, and both are closely matched against similar rivals. The 8645HS sits within 0.5% of the Intel Core i7-14701E, AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950H, Intel Core i5-12600HX, and AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX. The 7400F sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-14600T, Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD's Zen 4 architecture and both use 6 cores and 12 threads, but the similarities end there. The 8645HS is a mobile part from the 8000 series, codenamed Hawk Point, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process. The 7400F is a desktop part from the 7000 series, codenamed Raphael, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. This node difference is significant: the 8645HS uses a newer 4 nm process, yet it consistently loses to the 5 nm 7400F in every benchmark, which points to power and thermal limits rather than process technology being the deciding factor.

The transistor counts differ enormously. The 8645HS integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the 7400F uses 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. The 8645HS packs far more transistors because it includes a Radeon 760M integrated GPU, while the 7400F has no integrated graphics at all. The 8645HS also has a much lower TDP of 45 watts compared to 65 watts for the 7400F, and this power envelope difference is the most likely explanation for the performance gap.

Clock speeds tell part of the story. The 8645HS has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The 7400F has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Despite having lower clocks on paper, the 7400F wins every benchmark. This reinforces the conclusion that the 8645HS cannot sustain its higher clock speeds in practice, likely due to its 45-watt mobile power limit.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache, however, is doubled on the 7400F: 32 MB shared versus 16 MB shared on the 8645HS. This additional L3 capacity likely contributes to the 7400F's wins in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR5 and dual-channel memory, but the 8645HS has a higher memory bandwidth rating of 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the 7400F. The 7400F supports ECC memory while the 8645HS does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the 7400F supports Gen 5 with 24 lanes, while the 8645HS is limited to Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

The sockets are completely different. The 8645HS uses AMD Socket FP8, a mobile socket, while the 7400F uses AMD Socket AM5, a desktop socket. The 8645HS has a locked multiplier, while the 7400F has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable. The market segments reflect this: the 8645HS is a mobile processor while the 7400F is a desktop processor. Release dates also differ, with the 8645HS launching in December 2023 and the 7400F arriving in January 2025.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Ryzen 5 7400F win every benchmark when the Ryzen 5 8645HS has higher clock speeds?

A: The 8645HS has a higher base clock of 4.30 GHz and boost clock of 5.00 GHz compared to 3.70 GHz and 4.70 GHz for the 7400F. However, the 8645HS is constrained by a 45-watt TDP in a mobile package, while the 7400F has a 65-watt TDP in a desktop socket. The benchmark data shows the 7400F winning all 15 head-to-head tests, indicating that the 8645HS cannot sustain its clock advantage under load.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

Q: The Ryzen 5 7400F has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 16 MB found on the Ryzen 5 8645HS. Both processors have identical L1 and L2 cache configurations: 64 KB per core and 1 MB per core respectively.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory?

A: Both support DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses. The 8645HS has a higher rated memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the 7400F. The 7400F additionally supports ECC memory, which the 8645HS does not.

Q: Can either processor be overclocked?

A: Only the Ryzen 5 7400F has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable. The Ryzen 5 8645HS has a locked multiplier and cannot be overclocked.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Ryzen 5 8645HS includes a Radeon 760M integrated GPU, while the Ryzen 5 7400F has no integrated graphics (N/A). This means the 7400F requires a discrete graphics card, while the 8645HS can operate without one.

Q: How close are these processors to their nearest rivals?

A: Both sit at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs. The 8645HS has an average benchmark score of 33244, within 0.5% of rivals like the Intel Core i7-14701E, AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950H, Intel Core i5-12600HX, and AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX. The 7400F has an average score of 32750, within 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-14600T, Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Ryzen 5 7400F is the faster processor in every measured workload. The 44.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and the 39.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core are decisive. The 60.7% advantage in find prime numbers and 34% lead in physics further cement its dominance. Anyone choosing between these two strictly on performance should select the 7400F.

The 8645HS is not without its merits, but they are not performance merits. It offers a Radeon 760M integrated GPU, a 4 nm process node, and a lower 45-watt TDP, making it suitable for mobile systems where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter. It also has a higher memory bandwidth rating of 89.6 GB/s. However, the recorded benchmarks show no workload where the 8645HS comes out ahead.

The 7400F is the obvious choice for desktop builders who have a discrete GPU and want maximum performance. Its 65-watt TDP, unlocked multiplier, 32 MB of L3 cache, and Gen 5 PCIe support make it the more capable desktop part. The 8645HS belongs in mobile systems where its integrated graphics and lower power draw are necessary trade-offs. The launch MSRP of the 7400F is $229.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 8645HS | AMD Ryzen 5 7400F |

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

| Series | 8000 series | 7000 series |

| Base clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Raphael |

| Process node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | 6,570 million |

| Die size | 178 mm² | 71 mm² |

| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 24 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 760M | N/A |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2023-12-05 | 2025-01-08 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | 100-000001320 (FP7r2), 100-000001385 (FP7), 100-000001310 (FP8) | 100-000001845 |

| Launch MSRP | None | $229 |

Note that both processors share identical core counts (6), thread counts (12), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (1 MB per core), memory type (DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), architecture (Zen 4), manufacturer (AMD), and production status (Active).

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 5 7400F wins in every single benchmark category recorded in the database. Its largest advantages are in Cinebench R23 single-core (44.2% ahead), Cinebench R23 multi-core (39.3% ahead), find prime numbers (60.7% ahead), and physics (34% ahead). It also leads in multithread (11.9%), random string sorting (9.5%), data compression (8.5%), extended instructions (8%), data encryption (6.7%), Cinebench R15 single-core (12.6%), Cinebench R15 multi-core (4.5%), integer math (2.8%), floating point math (2.1%), and single-thread (1%). The 7400F is the pick for any compute-heavy desktop workload, especially rendering, physics simulation, and prime number calculations.

The Ryzen 5 8645HS does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Its strengths lie outside raw performance: it includes a Radeon 760M integrated GPU, enabling systems without a discrete graphics card. It has a lower 45-watt TDP suited for mobile chassis, a 4 nm process node, higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s, and a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz. It is the appropriate choice for a laptop or compact mobile system where integrated graphics and power efficiency take priority over maximum benchmark scores. For any user who can accommodate a discrete GPU and a desktop socket, the 7400F is the superior processor in every measured test.