AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500GE vs AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results between the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500GE reveal a clear pattern: the 8500GE takes the majority of wins, but the 8640HS secures the more decisive victories in specific workloads. Out of 17 recorded benchmark comparisons, the 8500GE wins 13, while the 8640HS wins 4.

The 8500GE’s Cinebench sweep is consistent across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 1854 against 1824, a 1.6% margin. Single-core R15 shows 261 versus 257, also 1.5% ahead. R20 multicore repeats the 1.6% gap (7725 vs 7603), and R20 single-core again lands at 1.6% (1090 vs 1073). R23 multicore follows with 18395 versus 18104, and R23 single-core with 2597 versus 2555, both at 1.6%. These are narrow but uniform margins, suggesting a small clock advantage in sustained rendering tasks.

The PassMark suite paints a more interesting picture. The 8500GE wins passmark_single_thread decisively: 3909 versus 3561, an 8.9% advantage. This is its largest single-threaded win and explains its overall lead in the database’s aggregate score. The 8500GE also takes passmark_physics by 15.7% (1237 vs 1043), its biggest margin of any test. Random string sorting goes to the 8500GE by 3.2% (31240 vs 30235), data compression by 0.9% (248675 vs 246446), and multithread by a razor-thin 0.2% (21502 vs 21465). Prime number finding favors the 8500GE by 14.5% (83 vs 71), a notable outlier given the 8640HS’s other math wins.

The 8640HS, however, wins the more compute-heavy PassMark categories. Integer math shows a 10.8% lead (69839 vs 63045), and floating-point math a 9.7% lead (43019 vs 39233). Data encryption favors the 8640HS by 5.6% (14962 vs 14163), and extended instructions by 2.8% (18507 vs 17999). These wins are larger in percentage terms than most of the 8500GE’s Cinebench victories, indicating that the 8640HS has a specific strength in integer and floating-point throughput.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the 8640HS averages 28478, while the 8500GE averages 28054, a difference of about 1.5%. Both processors sit at the 80th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The 8640HS’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E-2436 (delta 0.2% higher) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS (delta 0.2% higher), while the 8500GE’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14500T (delta 0%) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 5655G (delta 0.1% higher). These comparisons show both chips landing in a tightly packed performance band.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks overall?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500GE wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS wins 4.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The 8500GE leads by 15.7% in PassMark physics (1237 vs 1043). The 8640HS’s largest win is 10.8% in PassMark integer math (69839 vs 63045).

Q: How do the Cinebench scores compare?

A: The 8500GE wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multicore) by a consistent 1.5% to 1.6% margin. For example, R23 multicore is 18395 for the 8500GE versus 18104 for the 8640HS.

Q: Where does the 8640HS outperform the 8500GE?

A: The 8640HS wins in PassMark data encryption (5.6% ahead), extended instructions (2.8% ahead), floating-point math (9.7% ahead), and integer math (10.8% ahead).

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The 8500GE scores 3909 in PassMark single-thread, which is 8.9% higher than the 8640HS’s 3561. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 8500GE leads by 1.6% (2597 vs 2555).

Q: Do the two processors have similar overall scores?

A: Yes, their average benchmark scores are close: 28478 for the 8640HS and 28054 for the 8500GE, a difference of roughly 1.5%. Both are at the 80th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward choice for most buyers: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500GE is the stronger processor in the majority of recorded benchmarks. It wins 13 of 17 tests, including every Cinebench workload and the crucial single-thread PassMark test. Its 8.9% lead in single-thread performance is substantial, and its 15.7% advantage in physics is the largest gap in either direction. For general productivity, rendering, and everyday responsiveness, the 8500GE is the safer pick.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS, however, is not without merit. Its wins in integer math (10.8%), floating-point math (9.7%), and data encryption (5.6%) indicate a specialized strength in numerical and cryptographic workloads. If the user’s primary tasks involve heavy mathematical computation, encryption, or extended instruction sets, the 8640HS’s higher average score (28478 vs 28054) suggests it could deliver better results in those specific areas. The database shows the 8640HS also has a slightly higher average benchmark score despite losing the majority of head-to-head tests, which points to the weighted importance of its larger-margin wins.

There is no universal winner. The 8500GE is the dominant all-rounder, while the 8640HS is the specialist for math-heavy and encryption-bound tasks. For a general-purpose system, the 8500GE’s consistency across Cinebench and single-thread tests makes it the recommended choice. For a workload defined by integer or floating-point math, the 8640HS’s double-digit leads are too significant to ignore.

Specification Differences

The two processors share the same core and thread counts (6 cores, 12 threads), the same Zen 4 architecture, the same 4 nm TSMC process node, and the same L1 (64 KB per core), L2 (1 MB per core), and L3 (16 MB shared) cache structure. Both support DDR5 memory, dual-channel memory buses, and ECC memory. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Key differences begin with clock speeds. The 8640HS has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The 8500GE has a lower base clock of 3.40 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz. This explains the 8500GE’s single-thread advantage in benchmarks.

Thermal design power differs: the 8640HS is rated at 28 W, while the 8500GE is rated at 35 W. The socket also differs: the 8640HS uses AMD Socket FP7, while the 8500GE uses AMD Socket AM5. The 8640HS has more PCIe lanes (20 versus 14), both Gen 4. Memory bandwidth is higher on the 8640HS at 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s on the 8500GE.

The integrated graphics differ: the 8640HS has a Radeon 760M, while the 8500GE has a Radeon 740M. Transistor counts and die sizes also differ: the 8640HS has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the 8500GE has 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die. Both are listed as Mobile market segment parts, active production status, and released on the same date.

Architecture Differences

Both chips use the Zen 4 architecture and are built on the same 4 nm TSMC process, but their codenames differ: the 8640HS is Hawk Point, while the 8500GE is Phoenix2. This codename distinction aligns with the physical differences: the 8640HS has a larger die (178 mm²) and more transistors (25,000 million) than the 8500GE (137 mm², 20,900 million). The 8500GE’s smaller die and lower transistor count suggest a more streamlined implementation, which may contribute to its higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

The memory bandwidth difference (89.6 GB/s for the 8640HS versus 83.2 GB/s for the 8500GE) is notable despite identical DDR5 and dual-channel support. The PCIe lane count also differs (20 versus 14), which could affect expansion options in a real system. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Radeon 760M in the 8640HS versus the Radeon 740M in the 8500GE, though no benchmark data in this pack directly measures iGPU performance.

The socket difference (FP7 versus AM5) is significant for platform compatibility, but both are Zen 4 parts with identical cache hierarchies. The 8500GE’s higher TDP (35 W versus 28 W) likely enables its higher boost clock, while the 8640HS’s higher memory bandwidth and PCIe lanes suggest a design aimed at data-intensive tasks despite its lower power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500GE wins in all six Cinebench tests, including multicore and single-core variants, by a uniform 1.5% to 1.6% margin. This consistency points to a steady advantage in rendering and sustained CPU workloads. Its PassMark wins include single-thread (8.9% ahead), physics (15.7% ahead), prime number finding (14.5% ahead), random string sorting (3.2% ahead), data compression (0.9% ahead), and multithread (0.2% ahead). These results show the 8500GE dominating in single-threaded responsiveness, physics simulation, and string-processing tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS wins in PassMark integer math (10.8% ahead), floating-point math (9.7% ahead), data encryption (5.6% ahead), and extended instructions (2.8% ahead). These are the mathematically intensive workloads where the 8640HS’s larger die and higher memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s) may be providing an edge. The 8640HS also holds a slightly higher average benchmark score (28478 versus 28054), suggesting that its wins, though fewer, carry more weight in the database’s aggregate metric.

For users who prioritize rendering, everyday multitasking, or physics-heavy applications, the 8500GE’s consistent Cinebench and single-thread wins make it the logical choice. For users whose workloads revolve around encryption, integer or floating-point calculations, or extended instruction sets, the 8640HS offers double-digit percentage advantages that could translate to meaningful real-world speedups. The data shows a clear division: the 8500GE for general performance, the 8640HS for computational heavy lifting.