AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS vs AMD Ryzen 7 8700F Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS and AMD Ryzen 7 8700F are both 8000-series Zen 4 parts, but they target different platforms and power envelopes. The data shows the Ryzen 7 8700F, a desktop chip with an unlocked multiplier, is the clear performance winner in every benchmark recorded, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is a mobile processor with integrated graphics and ECC memory support. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—30,879 for the 8645HS versus 30,746 for the 8700F—but this masks a massive split: the 8700F leads in all 17 head-to-head tests, while the 8645HS counters with features the desktop chip lacks.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS has an average benchmark score of 30,879, which is 0.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F’s 30,746. Both sit at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Ryzen 7 8700F leads by 25.9% across all Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 8700F scores 26,646 versus 19,742 for the 8645HS.

Q: Is there any test where the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Ryzen 7 8700F wins all 17 recorded benchmarks, with the smallest margin being 0.4% in PassMark single-thread tests.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 7 8700F does not.

Q: What are the socket and platform differences?

A: The 8645HS uses AMD Socket FP7 for mobile systems, while the 8700F uses AMD Socket AM5 for desktops. The 8700F has an unlocked multiplier; the 8645HS does not.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS includes Radeon 760M integrated graphics. The Ryzen 7 8700F has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on TSMC’s 4 nm process with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, and both use the Zen 4 architecture. The core counts differ: the 8645HS has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 8700F has 8 cores and 16 threads. This two-core advantage for the 8700F is the primary driver of its multi-threaded performance lead.

The cache hierarchy is identical in structure—64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3—but the 8700F benefits from having two additional cores, each contributing its own L1 and L2. The 8645HS is codenamed Hawk Point and belongs to the Ryzen 5 generation (Zen 4 Hawk Point), while the 8700F is codenamed Phoenix and belongs to the Ryzen 7 generation (Zen 4 Phoenix).

The platform split is significant. The 8645HS is a mobile part with a 45 W TDP, while the 8700F is a desktop part rated at 65 W TDP. The 8700F has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, whereas the 8645HS is locked. The 8645HS carries Radeon 760M integrated graphics and ECC memory support; the 8700F has neither. Memory bandwidth differs slightly: the 8645HS supports 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the 8700F, though both use dual-channel DDR5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ryzen 7 8700F wins every head-to-head benchmark, but the margins tell different stories. In Cinebench tests, the 8700F is consistently 25.9% ahead across R15, R20, and R23, for both single-core and multi-core. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 8700F scores 26,646 versus 19,742, and in single-core it scores 3,761 versus 2,787. This uniformity suggests the clock speed and core count combine to produce a predictable advantage.

PassMark results show a wider range of deltas. The smallest gap is in single-thread performance: 3,872 versus 3,858, a mere 0.4% difference. The largest gap is in data compression, where the 8700F scores 378,160 versus 265,826, a 29.7% lead. Integer math shows a 27.5% advantage (100,371 versus 72,740), and floating-point math is 27.4% ahead (62,629 versus 45,481). Data encryption is 21.4% faster (22,117 versus 17,387), and random string sorting is 21.9% faster (45,425 versus 35,472).

The 8700F also leads in PassMark multithread (30,893 versus 23,569, a 23.7% gap), physics (1,553 versus 1,208, a 22.2% gap), and extended instructions (28,474 versus 21,212, a 25.5% gap). Find prime numbers shows a 25.5% advantage (98 versus 73). The pattern is clear: the 8700F’s extra two cores deliver roughly 22–30% more throughput in heavily threaded workloads, while single-thread performance is nearly identical.

The average benchmark scores tell a different story. The 8645HS averages 30,879, slightly higher than the 8700F’s 30,746, despite losing every head-to-head test. This is because the averages include different benchmark suites; the 8645HS has Cinebench and PassMark results, while the 8700F also includes 3DMark and Geekbench scores that are not directly comparable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS | AMD Ryzen 7 8700F |

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

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Phoenix |

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

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | None | $270 |

The 8645HS has a higher base clock (4.30 GHz versus 4.10 GHz) and higher memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s), but the 8700F compensates with two more cores and a 20 W higher TDP. The 8700F is the only one with an unlocked multiplier and a stated launch MSRP of $270. The 8645HS supports ECC memory and includes integrated graphics, which the 8700F lacks entirely.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the Ryzen 7 8700F is the outright performance winner. It wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with multi-threaded leads ranging from 21.9% to 29.7% and a negligible 0.4% single-thread edge. If raw compute is the priority, the 8700F is the obvious choice—its 8 cores and 16 threads consistently outpace the 8645HS in every recorded test.

However, the 8645HS is not without purpose. It offers ECC memory support, integrated Radeon 760M graphics, and a mobile form factor with a 45 W TDP. These features make it suitable for systems where reliability, graphics output, or power efficiency matter more than peak performance. The 8700F requires a discrete GPU and does not support ECC, which rules it out for certain workstation or server-like builds.

The average benchmark scores are effectively tied (30,879 versus 30,746), but this is misleading. The 8700F’s 82nd percentile ranking matches the 8645HS, yet the head-to-head data shows no scenario where the mobile chip wins. For a desktop builder who already has a GPU, the 8700F is the stronger pick. For a laptop or compact system needing integrated graphics and ECC, the 8645HS is the only option that provides those features.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins in:

• All multi-threaded compute: Cinebench R23 multi-core (26,646 versus 19,742) and PassMark multithread (30,893 versus 23,569)
• Data-heavy tasks: data compression (378,160 versus 265,826), integer math (100,371 versus 72,740), floating-point math (62,629 versus 45,481)
• Encryption and sorting: data encryption (22,117 versus 17,387) and random string sorting (45,425 versus 35,472)
• Single-thread performance: 0.4% ahead in PassMark single-thread (3,872 versus 3,858)
• Overclocking: unlocked multiplier allows user tuning

AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS wins in:

• Platform flexibility: ECC memory support and Radeon 760M integrated graphics
• Power efficiency: lower 45 W TDP versus 65 W for the 8700F
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s, though this did not translate into any benchmark win
• Mobile deployment: AMD Socket FP7 is designed for laptops, while the 8700F requires a desktop AM5 board
• Raw average score: 30,879 versus 30,746, a 0.4% margin driven by different benchmark suites

The data does not show a single workload where the 8645HS outperforms the 8700F. Its advantages are qualitative—ECC, iGPU, lower power, mobile socket—not quantitative. Builders should choose based on platform needs first, then performance. If the platform allows either chip, the 8700F is the faster processor in every measured metric.