AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS vs AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS is the decisive winner over the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X in this comparison, taking 14 of 15 head-to-head benchmark rounds. The 7640HS leads by margins ranging from a modest 1.3% in data compression to a colossal 102.4% in extended instructions. The 2700X manages only a single victory, in data encryption, where it edges ahead by 6.3%. While both processors sit at the 81st percentile among all CPUs, the 7640HS achieves an average benchmark score of 30390 versus 30213 for the 2700X, a gap of just 0.6% overall. The story is one of generational efficiency: the mobile Zen 4 part consistently outpaces the older desktop Zen+ chip despite having fewer cores and a much lower TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS dominates nearly every workload category, making it the clear choice for users prioritizing modern performance. Its biggest advantages appear in single-threaded and lightly-threaded tasks, where it leads by 53.4% in Cinebench R15 single-core and 67.7% in Geekbench single-core. These results indicate the 7640HS is substantially better suited for everyday responsiveness, application launches, and software that relies on a few fast cores. The 7640HS also excels in floating-point math (38.9% ahead), physics simulations (45.8% ahead), and prime number finding (87.8% ahead), suggesting strong scientific and computational capabilities.

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X wins exactly one benchmark: data encryption. Its score of 16929 surpasses the 7640HS’s 15867 by 6.3%. This narrow victory suggests the older chip retains an edge in certain encryption workloads, possibly due to its Zen architecture’s handling of specific cryptographic instructions. However, this single win is an outlier. The 2700X also comes close in data compression, scoring 266134 versus 269524, a deficit of just 1.3%. For all other measured tasks—integer math, multithreaded performance, random string sorting, and extended instructions—the 7640HS is firmly ahead. The 2700X’s only other competitive result is random string sorting, where it trails by 3.6%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS has an average benchmark score of 30390, while the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X scores 30213. The 7640HS holds a 0.6% advantage in this overall metric.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The 7640HS leads by 67.7% in Geekbench single-core (2093 vs 1248) and by 53.4% in Cinebench R15 single-core (269.5 vs 175.7). The PassMark single-thread test shows a 51.2% lead (3654 vs 2417).

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 2700X win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the 2700X wins the PassMark data encryption test with a score of 16929, beating the 7640HS’s 15867 by 6.3%. It also comes within 1.3% in data compression (266134 vs 269524).

Q: What is the difference in multithreaded performance?

A: The 7640HS leads by 31.5% in PassMark multithread (22979 vs 17468). In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 7640HS scores 1978 versus 1762 for the 2700X, a 12.3% advantage.

Q: How do the TDPs compare, and what does this imply?

A: The 7640HS has a TDP of 35 watts, while the 2700X has a TDP of 105 watts. The 7640HS delivers superior performance across nearly all benchmarks while drawing far less power, indicating a major efficiency improvement.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The 7640HS has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, compared to 4.35 GHz for the 2700X. The 7640HS also has a higher base clock at 4.30 GHz versus 3.70 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the 7640HS comes in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 20556 against 10155 for the 2700X, a staggering 102.4% improvement. This test likely reflects the newer Zen 4 architecture’s superior handling of advanced instruction sets. The Geekbench single-core test shows the second-biggest gap: 2093 versus 1248, a 67.7% difference. This is followed by Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 7640HS wins 269.5 to 175.7, a 53.4% lead. PassMark single-thread results mirror this trend, with the 7640HS ahead 3654 to 2417, representing a 51.2% advantage.

In multi-core workloads, the 7640HS continues to lead, though by narrower margins. The Geekbench multicore test shows a 47.5% lead (10389 vs 7045), while PassMark physics shows a 45.8% advantage (1155 vs 792). The 7640HS also wins PassMark floating-point math by 38.9% (45220 vs 32563) and PassMark multithread by 31.5% (22979 vs 17468). Cinebench R15 multicore is closer, with the 7640HS ahead by 12.3% (1978 vs 1762). Integer math favors the 7640HS by 15.4% (73284 vs 63485), and prime number finding shows an 87.8% lead (77 vs 41).

The 2700X’s sole victory is in data encryption, winning 16929 to 15867, a 6.3% margin. The closest overall result is data compression, where the 7640HS wins by just 1.3% (269524 vs 266134). Random string sorting is also close, with the 7640HS ahead by 3.6% (31654 vs 30563). These two tests show that the 2700X remains competitive in memory-heavy or data-manipulation tasks, but it cannot match the 7640HS in processing speed or instruction efficiency.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the 7640HS has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 2700X has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite fewer cores, the 7640HS wins most multithreaded benchmarks. Clock speeds favor the 7640HS, with a base of 4.30 GHz and boost of 5.00 GHz, versus 3.70 GHz base and 4.35 GHz boost for the 2700X. The TDP is dramatically different: 35 watts for the 7640HS versus 105 watts for the 2700X.

Socket compatibility is entirely different: the 7640HS uses AMD Socket FP8, while the 2700X uses AMD Socket AM4. The 7640HS supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the 2700X supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 46.9 GB/s bandwidth. The 7640HS supports ECC memory, while the 2700X does not. PCIe capabilities also differ: the 7640HS offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 2700X offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The 7640HS includes integrated Radeon 760M graphics, while the 2700X has no integrated graphics. The 2700X has an unlocked multiplier, while the 7640HS does not. The 2700X has a launch MSRP of $329. The 2700X was released on 2018-04-18, while the 7640HS has no listed release date.

Architecture Differences

The 7640HS is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Phoenix, using a 4 nm process node from TSMC. The 2700X uses the older Zen architecture with the codename Zen, specifically Zen+ (Pinnacle Ridge), manufactured on a 12 nm process by GlobalFoundries. This process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 12 nm explains much of the efficiency and performance gap. The 7640HS contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the 2700X has 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die.

Cache configurations differ notably. The 7640HS has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The 2700X has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, also with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L2 cache per core on the 7640HS likely contributes to its performance advantages. The 7640HS belongs to the 7000 series and Ryzen 5 generation, while the 2700X belongs to the 2000 series and Ryzen 7 generation. The 7640HS is a mobile segment part, while the 2700X is a desktop part. The 7640HS has multiple part numbers (100-000000956(FP7r2), 100-000000965(FP7), 100-000001130(FP8)), while the 2700X has part numbers YD270XBGAFBOX and YD270XBGM88AF.

The Verdict

The data overwhelmingly favors the AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS for virtually all use cases. It wins 14 of 15 benchmarks, including every major multi-core and single-core test. The 7640HS is the better choice for users who need strong performance in CPU-intensive tasks like video editing, 3D rendering, scientific computing, and software compilation, as evidenced by its 31.5% lead in PassMark multithread and 47.5% lead in Geekbench multicore. Its efficiency is remarkable: it achieves these results with a 35-watt TDP compared to the 2700X’s 105 watts, making it vastly superior for laptops and compact systems.

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X should only be considered by users with a specific need for its data encryption advantage, where it leads by 6.3%. It also remains competitive in data compression, trailing by just 1.3%. For anyone building a desktop with an AM4 socket or requiring an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, the 2700X offers those specific features. However, its 8-core, 16-thread configuration cannot overcome the architectural advantages of the 7640HS. The 7640HS delivers 67.7% higher Geekbench single-core performance and 102.4% higher extended instructions performance, making it the superior processor for modern software. The 2700X’s only meaningful wins are in legacy or niche encryption tasks. For general-purpose computing, the 7640HS is the clear winner.