AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS vs AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U are two 6-core Zen 4 mobile processors that sit remarkably close in overall performance, yet they cater to distinctly different workloads. The data shows the 8640U, despite its lower base clock, dominates in Cinebench rendering tests, while the 7640HS counters with wins in several Passmark sub-tests. With an average benchmark score of 30,390 against 30,254, the 7640HS holds a razor-thin 0.4% lead over its rival, placing both at the 81st percentile of all CPUs. The choice between them hinges on whether your priority is raw multi-threaded compute or specific integer and data-handling tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is decisive but not evenly distributed. The Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U takes the lion’s share of victories, winning 10 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons. Its most significant triumphs are in the Cinebench suite, where it delivers crushing defeats to the 7640HS. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 8640U scores 19,982 versus 12,554, a massive 37.2% advantage. The single-core gap is even more pronounced in percentage terms, with the 8640U leading 2,821 to 1,715.5, a 39.2% difference. These are not marginal wins; they represent a generational leap in rendering capability despite the 7640HS having a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz against the 8640U’s 4.90 GHz.

The 7640HS, conversely, wins 5 tests, and it focuses its strength on throughput-oriented tasks. It leads in Passmark data compression by 3.3% (269,524 vs 260,925) and in extended instructions by 7.5% (20,556 vs 19,130). It also edges ahead in data encryption (0.2%), multithread (0.8%), and physics (0.1%). These wins are narrower than the 8640U’s Cinebench dominance, but they show the 7640HS is not without merit for specific compute patterns. For users whose workloads involve compression, encryption, or AVX-style extended instruction sets, the 7640HS holds a measurable, if modest, edge.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental silicon, but they are packaged and configured differently. The 7640HS is part of the 7000 series, codenamed Phoenix, while the 8640U belongs to the 8000 series, codenamed Hawk Point. Both use the Zen 4 architecture on TSMC’s 4 nm process node, with identical transistor counts of 25,000 million and a die size of 178 mm². The cache layout is also identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. This means the performance differences come down to clock speeds and power envelopes, not structural changes.

The 7640HS has a higher base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, compared to the 8640U’s 3.50 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. However, the 8640U compensates with a significantly lower TDP of 28 watts versus 35 watts for the 7640HS. This is a classic trade-off: the 7640HS is tuned for higher sustained clocks within a larger power budget, while the 8640U is designed for efficiency, yet the benchmark data shows the 8640U pulling ahead in Cinebench. This suggests the 8640U’s boost behavior or thermal management allows it to hit higher effective clocks under sustained load, despite the lower nominal figures.

Both chips support DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with identical memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s and ECC support. They also share the same PCIe Gen 4 interface with 20 lanes (CPU only) and the same integrated Radeon 760M graphics. The sockets differ—FP8 for the 7640HS and FP7 for the 8640U—which has implications for system integration but not for user-visible performance. The 8640U carries the “PRO” designation, typically associated with enterprise features, but the data shows no architectural advantage in the benchmarks; it wins purely on execution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking contrast in the head-to-head data is the Cinebench R23 multi-core result. The 8640U’s score of 19,982 is 59% higher than the 7640HS’s 12,554. This is not a subtle improvement; it is a dominant showing that places the 8640U in a different performance class for rendering. The single-core R23 test tells a similar story: 2,821 versus 1,715.5, a 39.2% gap. Even in the older Cinebench R15 tests, the 8640U leads by 1.8% in multi-core (2,014 vs 1,978) and 5.1% in single-core (284 vs 269.5). These results are counterintuitive given the clock speeds, but the data is unambiguous.

Outside of Cinebench, the picture flips. The 7640HS wins Passmark data compression with a 3.3% margin (269,524 vs 260,925), showing that its higher base clock helps in memory-bound compression workloads. In extended instructions, the 7640HS is 7.5% ahead (20,556 vs 19,130), a significant edge for AVX-heavy tasks. The 7640HS also takes data encryption by a hair (15,867 vs 15,843, a 0.2% difference) and multithread by 0.8% (22,979 vs 22,795). The physics test is essentially a tie, with the 7640HS leading by 0.1% (1,155 vs 1,154).

The 8640U counters with wins in Passmark integer math (74,875 vs 73,284, a 2.1% edge), floating-point math (45,265 vs 45,220, a 0.1% edge), and random string sorting (32,114 vs 31,654, a 1.4% edge). It also wins the single-thread Passmark tests (3,732 vs 3,654, a 2.1% edge) and find prime numbers (78 vs 77, a 1.3% edge). The 8640U’s single-thread superiority in both Cinebench and Passmark is consistent, suggesting its boost algorithm is more aggressive or efficient than the 7640HS’s, despite the lower peak clock.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U is the superior processor for multi-threaded rendering and single-thread responsiveness, winning the Cinebench R23 multi-core by 37.2% and the R23 single-core by 39.2%. Its 10 benchmark wins versus 5 for the 7640HS, combined with a lower 28-watt TDP, make it the better choice for productivity workloads like video editing, 3D modeling, or software compilation. The 8640U’s wins are decisive where it matters most, and it loses only by small margins in the tests it drops.

The 7640HS is not without its niche. It wins Passmark data compression by 3.3% and extended instructions by 7.5%, which are meaningful for users running compression tools, scientific simulations, or AVX-optimized code. Its 35-watt TDP and higher base clock suggest it sustains throughput in specific integer-heavy tasks better than the 8640U. However, its losses in Cinebench are so large that they outweigh the narrow wins elsewhere. For any user whose workload includes rendering or heavy multi-threading, the 8640U is the only rational choice. For those whose tasks are dominated by compression or extended instruction sets, the 7640HS offers a slight edge, but the margin is thin.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U is significantly faster, scoring 19,982 compared to the 7640HS’s 12,554, a 37.2% advantage.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 7640HS win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins 5 tests, including Passmark data compression (269,524 vs 260,925), extended instructions (20,556 vs 19,130), data encryption, multithread, and physics.

Q: What are the key clock speed differences?

A: The 7640HS has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and boost of 5.00 GHz, while the 8640U has a base of 3.50 GHz and boost of 4.90 GHz. Despite lower clocks, the 8640U wins most benchmarks.

Q: Do both processors have the same integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both feature the Radeon 760M integrated GPU, along with identical cache configurations of 16 MB shared L3 and 1 MB L2 per core.

Q: Which chip has the lower power consumption?

A: The Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U has a TDP of 28 watts, while the 7640HS has a TDP of 35 watts, making the 8640U more power-efficient.

Q: How do they compare in single-threaded Passmark performance?

A: The 8640U wins with a score of 3,732 versus 3,654 for the 7640HS, a 2.1% advantage. This is consistent with its single-core wins in Cinebench R15 and R23.