AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS vs AMD Ryzen 7 8700F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is decisively one-sided. Across all 17 head-to-head tests, the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins every single matchup, with no wins for the Ryzen 5 7640HS. The margins, however, vary dramatically depending on the workload, revealing where the desktop part's extra cores and higher power envelope matter most.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 8700F scores 26,646 against the 7640HS's 12,554 — a massive 112.3% advantage. This is the clearest signal that heavily threaded rendering workloads are not a fair fight here. The single-core R23 result is even more lopsided in percentage terms, with the 8700F at 3,761 versus 1,715.5, a 119.2% lead. That is surprising; single-core tests typically show smaller deltas, but the data shows the 8700F's 5.00 GHz boost clock paired with its desktop power delivery simply overwhelms the mobile chip's same 5.00 GHz boost.

Cinebench R15 tells a similar but less extreme story. The 8700F leads by 35.7% in multi-core (2,685 vs 1,978) and by 40.3% in single-core (378 vs 269.5). The R15 single-core result is notable because the absolute scores are low for both, but the relative gap confirms the 8700F's architectural efficiency advantage under sustained load.

Geekbench results narrow the gap somewhat. Multi-core sees the 8700F at 13,523 versus 10,389, a 30.2% lead. Single-core is closer still at 9.4% (2,290 vs 2,093). This suggests that in shorter, bursty workloads, the 7640HS's higher base clock of 4.30 GHz (versus 4.10 GHz on the 8700F) helps it keep pace, even though it ultimately still loses.

PassMark tests show consistent wins across the board, with deltas ranging from 6% to 43.5%. The smallest margin is in single-thread performance: 3,872 vs 3,654, just 6% apart. This is the closest result in the entire comparison and indicates that for lightly threaded tasks like basic office work or web browsing, the two chips are nearly interchangeable. The largest PassMark margin is in random string sorting at 43.5% (45,425 vs 31,654), a memory-latency-sensitive test where the 8700F's desktop memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, while lower than the 7640HS's 89.6 GB/s, is paired with a more robust memory controller implementation.

Data compression shows a 40.3% lead (378,160 vs 269,524), while encryption is close behind at 39.4% (22,117 vs 15,867). Extended instructions, floating-point math, and physics all hover in the 34-39% range, reinforcing that the 8700F's two extra cores translate into roughly a one-third to two-fifths advantage in most compute-heavy tasks. Integer math is 37% better (100,371 vs 73,284), and prime number finding sees a 27.3% edge (98 vs 77).

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are built on the same foundational architecture: Zen 4, codenamed Phoenix, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. Both use the same 178 mm² die size and contain 25,000 million transistors. The L1 cache is identical at 64 KB per core, L2 is 1 MB per core, and both share 16 MB of L3 cache.

The core counts diverge significantly. The Ryzen 7 8700F has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 7640HS has 6 cores and 12 threads. This 33% core advantage is the primary driver of the multi-threaded benchmark gaps. Base clocks differ slightly: the 8700F runs at 4.10 GHz, while the 7640HS starts higher at 4.30 GHz. Both boost to 5.00 GHz.

The socket and platform are entirely different. The 8700F uses AMD Socket AM5, a desktop platform with a 65 W TDP and an unlocked multiplier. The 7640HS uses AMD Socket FP8, a mobile platform with a 35 W TDP and a locked multiplier. The 8700F is a desktop part; the 7640HS is a mobile part.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, with dual-channel buses. The 8700F has a rated memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s and does not support ECC memory. The 7640HS has a slightly higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s and does support ECC memory. Both use PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

A major difference is integrated graphics. The 8700F has no integrated GPU (listed as "N/A"), making a discrete graphics card mandatory. The 7640HS includes Radeon 760M integrated graphics, allowing for a display output without a dedicated GPU. The 8700F was released on 2024-03-31 and carries a launch MSRP of $270; the 7640HS has no listed release date or MSRP in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Are both processors based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename, are built on TSMC's 4 nm process, and share the same 178 mm² die size and 25,000 million transistors.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 7640HS have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Radeon 760M integrated graphics. The Ryzen 7 8700F has no integrated graphics at all, so it requires a discrete GPU.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark difference between the two?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 8700F scores 26,646 versus the 7640HS's 12,554, a 112.3% advantage. The single-core R23 test also shows a 119.2% gap in favor of the 8700F (3,761 vs 1,715.5).

Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Ryzen 5 7640HS has a higher base clock at 4.30 GHz, compared to the 4.10 GHz base clock of the Ryzen 7 8700F. Both have the same 5.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: Can the Ryzen 7 8700F be overclocked?

A: Yes, the 8700F has an unlocked multiplier. The 7640HS has a locked multiplier, so it cannot be overclocked.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 8700F | AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS |

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

| Series | 8000 series | 7000 series |

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 4.10 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | AMD Socket FP8 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

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

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-03-31 | Not listed |

| Launch MSRP | $270 | Not listed |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | 100-000001590 | 100-000000956(FP7r2)100-000000965(FP7)100-000001130(FP8) |

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 7 8700F wins every benchmark in the comparison, so the practical question is not whether it wins, but where the margins matter enough to dictate a purchase.

For heavily multi-threaded workloads — video rendering, 3D modeling, software compilation, or any task that scales across cores — the 8700F is the clear choice. The 112.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 30.2% lead in Geekbench multi-core demonstrate that the two extra cores and 4 extra threads deliver substantial real-world performance. The 34.4% PassMark multi-thread lead and 37% integer math advantage reinforce this.

For single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks, the 8700F still wins, but the margin narrows to 6-9.4%. If your workload is mostly web browsing, document editing, or light productivity, the 7640HS is not far behind. Its higher base clock of 4.30 GHz helps it stay competitive in short bursts.

The 7640HS has two distinct advantages, though neither is performance-related. First, it includes Radeon 760M integrated graphics, meaning a system can be built without a discrete GPU. Second, it has a 35 W TDP versus 65 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency and thermal management are priorities. The 8700F requires a dedicated GPU and a desktop platform, which means more power draw and more heat.

ECC memory support is another point for the 7640HS, which matters for certain professional or server-adjacent use cases where data integrity is critical.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS in every single benchmark recorded. It wins 17 of 17 head-to-head tests, with wins ranging from 6% in PassMark single-thread to 119.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core. Its 8-core, 16-thread configuration, combined with a 65 W desktop power envelope, makes it the superior choice for any performance-oriented desktop build.

The 7640HS is not a bad processor — it sits at the 81st percentile among all CPUs, just one point below the 8700F's 82nd percentile. Its average benchmark score of 30,390 is within 1.2% of the 8700F's 30,746. But in a direct comparison, it loses everywhere.

Who should pick the 8700F? Anyone building a desktop that demands maximum multi-threaded throughput, especially for content creation, rendering, or heavy productivity. The unlocked multiplier also appeals to enthusiasts who want to overclock. The lack of integrated graphics is a non-issue for gamers and workstation users who will install a discrete GPU anyway.

Who should pick the 7640HS? Those who need a mobile processor with integrated graphics and a low 35 W TDP. Its ECC memory support is a genuine feature for certain workloads. If your priority is a thin laptop that can handle moderate productivity tasks with decent battery life, the 7640HS is the sensible choice. The 8700F simply cannot be used in that context — it is a desktop-only part.

In short, if you are choosing between these two for a desktop, the 8700F wins outright. If you are choosing for a laptop, the 7640HS is the only option of the two that fits the platform. The benchmark scores confirm the expected outcome: more cores, more threads, and a higher TDP deliver more performance.