AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS and AMD Ryzen 5 8400F occupy the same performance percentile, yet they are fundamentally different products. The 7735HS is a mobile part built on Zen 3+, while the 8400F is a desktop chip on the newer Zen 4 architecture. Benchmark data shows a near-identical average score—the 7735HS at 25147 and the 8400F at 25005, a difference of just 0.6%—but the distribution of wins is lopsided. The 8400F takes 13 of 21 head-to-head tests, leveraging superior single-thread performance, whereas the 7735HS wins 8 tests, primarily in multi-threaded workloads where its 8 cores and 16 threads provide an edge over the 8400F’s 6 cores and 12 threads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 25147, compared to the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F’s 25005. The delta between them is just 0.6%, placing the 8400F as a close rival to the 7735HS.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F is consistently faster in single-threaded tests. It leads by 4.1% in 3dMark single-thread (951 vs 912), by 16.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core, and by a substantial 47.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2943 vs 1546).

Q: Which CPU wins in heavily multi-threaded workloads?

A: It depends on the specific benchmark. The 7735HS wins Cinebench R15 multicore by 2.5% (2153.4 vs 2101) and 3dMark max threads by 11.5%. However, the 8400F delivers a massive 37.1% win in Cinebench R23 multicore (20851 vs 13106), showing that its Zen 4 cores scale better in certain intensive tasks.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration for each processor?

A: The Ryzen 7 7735HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The 7735HS also offers a larger L2 cache per core (512 KB vs 1 MB for the 8400F), but the 8400F compensates with a higher base clock of 4.20 GHz versus 3.20 GHz.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory and integrated graphics?

A: The Ryzen 7 7735HS supports ECC memory and includes the Radeon 680M integrated graphics. The Ryzen 5 8400F, in contrast, does not support ECC memory and has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: Which processor is newer and what is its launch MSRP?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F was released later, on 2024-03-31, compared to the 7735HS’s release on 2023-03-31. The 8400F has a launch MSRP of $170.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on different architectural foundations, which explains much of their divergent benchmark behavior. The Ryzen 7 7735HS is based on the Zen 3+ architecture, codenamed Rembrandt-R, and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Ryzen 5 8400F uses the newer Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix, manufactured on a more advanced 4 nm process. This process shrink allows the 8400F to achieve higher clock speeds and better instruction-level efficiency despite having fewer cores.

The 8400F’s die size is 178 mm², while the 7735HS is slightly larger at 210 mm². Interestingly, the 8400F packs 25,000 million transistors, a figure not disclosed for the 7735HS. Cache hierarchies also differ: both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 16 MB of shared L3, but the 8400F doubles the L2 cache to 1 MB per core versus 512 KB for the 7735HS. This larger L2 cache likely contributes to the 8400F’s strong single-threaded showing.

Memory bandwidth favors the desktop part, with the 8400F supporting 83.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the 7735HS, though both support dual-channel DDR5. The 7735HS includes integrated Radeon 680M graphics and supports ECC memory, while the 8400F has no iGPU and no ECC support. The 8400F also features an unlocked multiplier, a trait absent on the 7735HS, and uses the AMD Socket AM5 platform compared to the mobile AMD Socket FP7. PCIe support is identical: Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only) for both.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload type and platform. For users prioritizing raw single-threaded responsiveness and modern desktop features, the Ryzen 5 8400F is the stronger choice. It wins decisively in Cinebench R23 single-core by 47.5% and in 3dMark single-thread by 4.1%. Its higher base clock of 4.20 GHz and larger L2 cache per core are evident in these results. Additionally, the 8400F offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, a feature the 7735HS lacks, and comes with a launch MSRP of $170.

However, the Ryzen 7 7735HS is not without its merits for specific use cases. It wins in 3dMark 16-thread by 12.8% and in PassMark integer math by 15.2%, suggesting its 8-core/16-thread configuration handles certain parallel workloads better. The 7735HS also includes integrated graphics, making it a viable option for systems without a discrete GPU, and supports ECC memory for stability-critical applications. Its market segment is mobile, so it is designed for laptops and compact systems, whereas the 8400F is a desktop part.

The overall win count favors the 8400F (13 wins vs 8), and its average benchmark score is nearly identical to the 7735HS (25005 vs 25147). Given the 8400F’s newer architecture, higher clocks, and competitive multi-threaded performance in Cinebench R23, it emerges as the better all-around performer for desktop users. The 7735HS remains relevant for mobile platforms where its integrated graphics and lower TDP of 35 watts are advantageous.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields, as detailed below:

• Series: 7000 series (7735HS) vs 8000 series (8400F)
• Cores: 8 (7735HS) vs 6 (8400F)
• Threads: 16 (7735HS) vs 12 (8400F)
• Base Clock: 3.20 GHz (7735HS) vs 4.20 GHz (8400F)
• Boost Clock: 4.75 GHz (7735HS) vs 4.70 GHz (8400F)
• TDP: 35 W (7735HS) vs 65 W (8400F)
• Socket: AMD Socket FP7 (7735HS) vs AMD Socket AM5 (8400F)
• Architecture: Zen 3+ (7735HS) vs Zen 4 (8400F)
• Codename: Rembrandt-R (7735HS) vs Phoenix (8400F)
• Process Node: 6 nm (7735HS) vs 4 nm (8400F)
• Die Size: 210 mm² (7735HS) vs 178 mm² (8400F)
• L2 Cache: 512 KB per core (7735HS) vs 1 MB per core (8400F)
• Memory Bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s (7735HS) vs 83.2 GB/s (8400F)
• ECC Memory: Supported (7735HS) vs Not supported (8400F)
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon 680M (7735HS) vs N/A (8400F)
• Market Segment: Mobile (7735HS) vs Desktop (8400F)
• Release Date: 2023-03-31 (7735HS) vs 2024-03-31 (8400F)
• Multiplier Unlocked: No (7735HS) vs Yes (8400F)
• Transistor Count: Not disclosed (7735HS) vs 25,000 million (8400F)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark suite reveals a clear pattern: the 8400F dominates single-threaded and lightly threaded tests, while the 7735HS fights back in multi-threaded scenarios. Starting with the 3dMark series, the 7735HS wins 16-thread (6870 vs 6091, +12.8%), 8-thread (5697 vs 5275, +8%), and max-threads (6872 vs 6165, +11.5%) tests. The 8400F counters with wins in 2-thread (1874 vs 1773, -5.4% for the 7735HS) and 4-thread (3563 vs 3382, -5.1%) tests, along with a 4.1% edge in single-thread (951 vs 912).

Cinebench results are starkly divided. In R15 multicore, the 7735HS edges ahead by 2.5% (2153.4 vs 2101). But in R23 multicore, the 8400F delivers a crushing 37.1% win (20851 vs 13106). The single-core gap is even more pronounced: the 8400F leads R15 single-core by 16.2% (296 vs 248) and R23 single-core by 47.5% (2943 vs 1546). This suggests the 8400F’s Zen 4 architecture provides vastly superior per-core performance, while the 7735HS leverages its extra cores to stay competitive in older multi-threaded benchmarks.

PassMark tests show a mixed bag. The 7735HS wins data compression by 1.8%, data encryption by 9.6%, floating point math by 3.6%, and integer math by 15.2% (85309 vs 74021). The 8400F, however, takes extended instructions by 9.6%, find prime numbers by 33.7% (89 vs 59), multi-thread by 5%, physics by 19.4%, random string sorting by 12.2%, and single-thread by 10.6% (3685 vs 3296). Overall, the 8400F’s wins in physics and prime number calculations highlight its superior per-core efficiency, while the 7735HS’s integer math dominance shows the benefit of additional cores in specific integer-heavy tasks.