AMD Ryzen 5 7400F vs AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clear overall winner in the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, which takes 11 of the 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The most dramatic separation occurs in the Cinebench suite, where the desktop chip completely outclasses the mobile part. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen 5 7400F scores 21,765 against the Ryzen 7 6800HS’s 11,992, a staggering 81.5% advantage. Single-core performance in the same test is even more lopsided: the 7400F posts 3,072 versus 1,455, translating to a 111.1% delta. These are not marginal differences; they represent fundamentally different performance tiers.

The older Cinebench R15 results tell the same story, though with smaller margins. The 7400F leads multi-core with 2,193 against 1,987 (10.4% ahead) and single-core with 309 against 234 (32.1% ahead). Notably, the R15 multi-core gap is much smaller than the R23 gap, suggesting that the newer workload scales better with the 7400F’s architecture or that the 6800HS’s additional cores help it in shorter, less cache-sensitive tasks.

Turning to PassMark results, the 7400F continues its dominance in most categories. The prime number finding test shows the largest single delta of any benchmark: 191 for the 7400F versus 56 for the 6800HS, a 241.1% victory. Physics simulation also heavily favors the desktop part, with scores of 1,660 and 1,009 respectively, a 64.5% difference. Random string sorting goes to the 7400F by 16%, multi-threaded performance by 12.5%, and single-thread performance by 15.9% (3,689 vs 3,184). Extended instructions favor the 7400F by 8.1%, with scores of 21,747 and 20,114.

However, the 6800HS does not go down without a fight. It wins four tests, and its victories are concentrated in specific computational areas. The most notable win is in integer math, where it scores 84,228 versus 74,745, an 11.3% advantage. Data encryption also goes to the mobile chip, 18,104 versus 16,712 (7.7% ahead). Floating point math sees the 6800HS ahead by 3.6% (47,533 vs 45,799), and data compression shows a narrow 0.9% win (292,698 vs 289,999). These wins suggest that the 6800HS’s eight cores provide real throughput advantages in certain parallel integer and cryptographic workloads, even if its overall architecture is older.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to a clear use-case split. The Ryzen 5 7400F is the obvious choice for any workload that depends on raw single-thread speed or heavily threaded rendering. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21,765 is nearly double that of the 6800HS, making it far better suited for video rendering, 3D modeling, and other content creation tasks that scale across cores. The 111.1% single-core advantage in the same test also indicates faster application responsiveness and better performance in lightly threaded tasks like web browsing, office productivity, and legacy software that relies on one or two cores. The physics simulation result (64.5% ahead) reinforces its strength in gaming-related physics calculations, while the prime number test (241.1% ahead) suggests superior integer throughput in specific scientific or computational workloads.

The Ryzen 7 6800HS, despite its older Zen 3+ architecture, claims victory in data encryption and integer math. Its 7.7% edge in encryption and 11.3% edge in integer math indicate that for file encryption, compression algorithms, or certain database operations, the extra two cores can compensate for the architectural deficit. The floating point win (3.6%) and data compression win (0.9%) are smaller but still consistent. This makes the 6800HS a reasonable choice for specific server-like tasks running on a mobile platform, or for users who need a laptop chip that handles cryptographic workloads with reasonable efficiency. The 6800HS also includes integrated Radeon 680M graphics, meaning it can function without a discrete GPU, whereas the 7400F has no integrated graphics at all.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and target entirely different market segments. The Ryzen 5 7400F is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Raphael, while the Ryzen 7 6800HS uses Zen 3+ under the codename Rembrandt. This generational gap is immediately visible in the manufacturing process: the 7400F uses TSMC’s 5 nm node, whereas the 6800HS uses the older 6 nm node. The die size difference is notable, with the 7400F measuring 71 mm² and the 6800HS at 208 mm². Interestingly, the 7400F has 6,570 million transistors, while the 6800HS has no recorded transistor count in the database.

Cache configuration also differs significantly. Both share 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the 7400F has 1 MB per core, while the 6800HS has 512 KB per core. The L3 cache is a major differentiator, with the 7400F offering 32 MB shared versus just 16 MB shared on the 6800HS. This doubled L3 cache likely contributes to the 7400F’s massive lead in Cinebench R23, given that rendering workloads benefit from larger cache footprints.

Memory bandwidth also favors the desktop chip: 83.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the mobile part, both using dual-channel DDR5. The 7400F supports ECC memory, while the 6800HS does not. PCIe capabilities differ as well, with the 7400F offering Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only) compared to Gen 4 with 20 lanes on the 6800HS. The desktop chip has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the mobile chip is locked. The 6800HS includes Radeon 680M integrated graphics, a feature entirely absent from the 7400F. Socket types reflect their segments: the 7400F uses AMD Socket AM5 for desktop, while the 6800HS uses AMD Socket FP7 for mobile.

Specification Differences

The core configuration is the most obvious difference: the 7400F has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 6800HS has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the 7400F has a higher base clock of 3.70 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. Both chips share the same boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The thermal design power (TDP) diverges sharply, with the 7400F rated at 65 watts and the 6800HS at just 35 watts, reflecting the mobile chip’s focus on power efficiency.

The 7400F belongs to the 7000 series and was released on January 8, 2025, with a launch MSRP of $229. The 6800HS belongs to the 6000 series and has no recorded release date or launch MSRP in the database. The 7400F’s part number is 100-000001845, while the 6800HS has a dual part number: 100-000000545100-000000561. Both processors are marked as Active in production. The 7400F is a Desktop segment part, while the 6800HS is Mobile. The 7400F uses the Zen 4 (Raphael) generation, and the 6800HS uses Zen 3+ (Rembrandt). Both support DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, and the 7400F adds ECC support that the 6800HS lacks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, with a score of 3,072 compared to the Ryzen 7 6800HS’s 1,455, representing a 111.1% advantage.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 6800HS win any benchmarks against the 7400F?

A: Yes, it wins four tests: data compression, data encryption, floating point math, and integer math, with deltas of 0.9%, 7.7%, 3.6%, and 11.3% respectively.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ryzen 7 6800HS has a TDP of 35 watts.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ryzen 7 6800HS has 16 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 7400F have integrated graphics?

A: No, it has no integrated graphics (N/A), while the Ryzen 7 6800HS includes Radeon 680M integrated graphics.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor claim in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F wins 11 benchmarks, and the Ryzen 7 6800HS wins 4 benchmarks out of 15 total comparisons.

The Verdict

The data strongly favors the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F for most users. Its 81.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 111.1% lead in single-core make it the clear choice for rendering, content creation, and general desktop responsiveness. The 241.1% advantage in prime number finding and 64.5% lead in physics simulation further cement its position for computational and gaming workloads. The 7400F also offers a larger L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB), faster memory bandwidth (83.2 GB/s vs 76.8 GB/s), PCIe Gen 5 support, ECC memory support, and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Its 65-watt TDP is higher, but that is expected for a desktop part.

The Ryzen 7 6800HS is not without merit. Its 11.3% win in integer math and 7.7% win in data encryption make it a better choice for specific cryptographic or integer-heavy tasks. The 35-watt TDP and integrated Radeon 680M graphics make it far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency and integrated display output are critical. Its 8 cores and 16 threads provide a slight edge in certain parallel workloads, as evidenced by the data compression win, even if the overall performance ceiling is lower.

The benchmark data indicates that the 7400F is the superior processor for desktop users who prioritize performance and have a discrete GPU. The 6800HS is the practical choice for mobile users who need a capable processor with integrated graphics and lower power consumption. The 83rd percentile ranking for both chips in the database suggests they occupy similar overall positions relative to all CPUs, but the head-to-head results reveal that the 7400F is the stronger performer in the majority of tests. For anyone building a desktop system, the 7400F’s launch MSRP of $229 makes it a compelling option; for anyone buying a laptop, the 6800HS’s feature set and efficiency profile are better suited to that form factor.