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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a closely contested pair, with the AMD Ryzen 5 8640U taking 9 wins and the AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS taking 8. However, the magnitude of the victories tells a more nuanced story than the win count suggests. The 8640HS secures its wins primarily in Cinebench workloads, while the 8640U dominates in Geekbench and several Passmark subtests.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 8640HS posts 11486 points against the 8640U's 10433, a 9.2% advantage. The gap narrows slightly in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the HS leads 1845 to 1663, a 9.9% difference. Single-core results follow the same pattern: the HS wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 1711 versus 1651, a 3.5% edge, and Cinebench R15 single-core with 268 versus 256, a 4.5% edge. This consistent Cinebench superiority suggests the HS sustains higher clocks under sustained render loads.

The 8640U answers decisively in Geekbench. Its multi-core score of 8185 beats the HS's 7461 by 9.7%. The single-core gap is even larger: 2131 versus 1778, a 19.9% margin. This is the largest delta of any benchmark in the comparison. The U-class part appears better tuned for the bursty, latency-sensitive workloads that Geekbench measures.

Passmark results split the pair more evenly. The 8640U wins data compression 230080 to 226544, a 1.6% margin, and data encryption 14013 to 13551, a 3.4% edge. Extended instructions go to the U part at 16500 versus 15855, a 4.1% advantage. Floating point math favors the U at 40330 versus 39725, up 1.5%. The U also leads in multithread 20322 to 19889, up 2.2%, physics 1033 to 970, up 6.5%, and random string sorting 28066 to 27316, up 2.7%.

The HS takes the remaining Passmark tests by very narrow margins. Integer math is nearly identical: 68173 for the HS versus 68051 for the U, a 0.2% difference. Find prime numbers goes to the HS 70 to 69, a 1.4% edge. Single-threadás the recorded data lists both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, the HS wins both at 3584 versus 3534, a 1.4% margin.

Looking at overall averages, the two parts sit almost exactly level. The 8640U has an average benchmark score of 26462, while the 8640HS averages 26106. Both hold the 78th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The U's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-12900HK at 26469, a 0% delta, and the Intel Core i7-1280P at 26469, also 0%. The HS's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U at 26187, a -0.3% delta, followed by the Intel Core i7-14701TE at 26013, a 0.4% delta. In effect, the 8640U sits in slightly faster company, though the difference between the two parts is small relative to their respective peer groups.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same fundamental design. Both are built on AMD's Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename and belong to the 8000 series. The manufacturing process is identical: TSMC's 4 nm node, with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. Each chip has 6 cores and 12 threads, and both run at a 3.50 GHz base clock and a 4.90 GHz boost clock. The thermal design power is 28 watts for both, and both use the AMD Socket FP8.

Cache hierarchies match exactly. Each core has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, with 16 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither part supports ECC memory. Both provide PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are identical as well: the Radeon 760M. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The only architectural difference in the database is the part number. The 8640U is listed as 100-000001324 (FP7r2), 100-000001376 (FP7), and 100-000001313 (FP8). The 8640HS is listed as 100-000001373 (FP7r2), 100-000001380 (FP7), and 100-000001358 (FP8). The different part numbers reflect distinct binning and packaging validation, even though the functional specifications are identical. The recorded data shows no difference in node, core count, cache, memory support, or power envelope. This makes the benchmark deltas particularly interesting, as they arise from the same silicon and the same declared clocks.

Both chips launched on the same date and remain in active production. The market segment for both is mobile. The identical specifications suggest that the HS and U variants are selected from the same wafer population, with the HS possibly binned for better sustained performance under the same 28 W TDP. The benchmark results support this interpretation: the HS consistently outperforms the U in Cinebench, a workload that stresses sustained multi-core execution, while the U wins in Geekbench and several Passmark tests that may favor boost behavior or memory latency tuning.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS scores 11486, which is 9.2% higher than the 8640U's 10433.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the 8640U beats the 8640HS by a large margin?

A: Yes, in Geekbench single-core the 8640U scores 2131 versus 1778 for the HS, a 19.9% advantage. It also leads Geekbench multi-core by 9.7%, 8185 to 7461.

Q: Do the two processors have identical specifications?

A: The database lists identical cores, threads, clocks, TDP, cache, memory support, PCIe lanes, integrated graphics, process node, and die size. The only recorded difference is the part number.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The 8640U averages 26462, while the 8640HS averages 26106. Both sit at the 78th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How do the two compare in Passmark integer math?

A: The 8640HS leads slightly at 68173 versus 68051, a 0.2% difference, making it effectively a tie.

Q: What is the closest rival to each processor in the database?

A: The 8640U's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-12900HK at 26469, a 0% delta. The 8640HS's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U at 26187, a -0.3% delta.

The Verdict

The data paints a split picture with no universal winner. The 8640HS is the stronger choice for sustained multi-core rendering workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core lead of 9.2% and Cinebench R15 multi-core lead of 9.9% are the largest performance gaps in the entire comparison. If the workload is a long-running render, the HS delivers measurably more throughput.

The 8640U is the better choice for mixed general-purpose computing and single-core responsiveness. Its Geekbench single-core advantage of 19.9% is the single biggest margin in either direction across all 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The U also wins 9 of the 17 tests overall, including all of the Passmark subtests except integer math, physics, find prime numbers, and single-thread. For interactive applications, database operations, encryption workloads, floating point math, and physics simulations all favor the U.

The Passmark multithread and physics results reinforce the U's position. The U leads multithread at 20322 versus 19889, up 2.2%, and physics at 1033 versus 970, up 6.5%. These are not trivial margins. The U also holds the higher average benchmark score, 26462 versus 26106, and matches the HS in percentile ranking at 78.

Buyers who prioritize maximum multi-core rendering performance should select the 8640HS. Buyers who want the broader all-around benchmark profile, particularly in Geekbench and Passmark, should select the 8640U. Neither part has a meaningful edge in integer math, where the difference is 0.2%, so integer-heavy workloads will not differentiate the two.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 8640U | AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS |

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

| Part Number | 100-000001324 (FP7r2), 100-000001376 (FP7), 100-000001313 (FP8) | 100-000001373 (FP7r2), 100-000001380 (FP7), 100-000001358 (FP8) |

All other recorded specifications are identical. Both have 6 cores, 12 threads, a 3.50 GHz base clock, a 4.90 GHz boost clock, a 28 W TDP, AMD Socket FP8, Zen 4 architecture, Hawk Point codename, 4 nm process node from TSMC, 25,000 million transistors, a 178 mm² die, 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, 16 MB shared L3, DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, no ECC support, PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Radeon 760M integrated graphics, mobile market segment, active production status, and a locked multiplier. Both launched on the same date, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.