AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS vs AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into clear use cases. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS wins 13 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS takes only 2. That looks one-sided, but the two wins for the Ryzen 5 PRO are in the most demanding all-core and single-threaded rendering workloads, which flips the script for certain tasks.

The Ryzen 9 7940HS dominates the Passmark suite, which covers general productivity and math-heavy operations. It leads by 41.7% in integer math, 38.3% in floating point math, 37.4% in data compression, 29.5% in extended instructions, 25.2% in data encryption, and 27.7% in multithreaded work. If your daily load involves encryption, compression, spreadsheet crunches, or any kind of number-crunching that uses all cores, the Ryzen 9 is the clear pick. The 8-core/16-thread configuration gives it a raw throughput edge that shows up everywhere in the Passmark suite.

The Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS, however, wins the two Cinebench R23 tests. It beats the Ryzen 9 by 15.3% in multi-core and by 35.8% in single-core. That is a huge single-thread advantage, which makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications that rely on one or two fast cores, such as older games or legacy software. It also wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is a common proxy for video rendering, 3D scene building, and other professional content creation tasks. The data shows that the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is the better rendering chip in this comparison, despite having 2 fewer cores and 4 fewer threads.

For everything else, the Ryzen 9 7940HS is the safer bet. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 33.5%, Cinebench R15 single-core by 1.1%, Passmark physics by 20%, random string sorting by 19.5%, and both Passmark single-thread tests by 0.5%. The Ryzen 9 also holds the edge in the 3DMark tests from its own benchmark list, scoring 7558 in max threads versus the Ryzen 5 PRO's 23569 in Passmark multithread, though those are different tests.

In short: the Ryzen 9 7940HS is the all-rounder with the stronger multi-core math suite. The Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is the specialist, winning the rendering test that matters most for creators.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster for video rendering?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS, based on Cinebench R23 multi-core. It scores 19742 versus the Ryzen 9 7940HS's 16713, a 15.3% advantage.

Q: Which CPU has better single-threaded performance?

A: The Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 35.8% and Cinebench R15 single-core by a smaller 1.1%. However, the Ryzen 9 7940HS wins Passmark single-thread by 0.5% with 3878 versus 3858. The data is mixed, with the Ryzen 5 PRO having the larger wins in Cinebench.

Q: Which CPU is better for compression and encryption?

A: The Ryzen 9 7940HS. It leads by 37.4% in data compression (365352 vs 265826) and by 25.2% in data encryption (21777 versus 17387).

Q: How many cores and threads do they have?

A: The Ryzen 9 7940HS has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 9 7940HS boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS boosts to 5.00 GHz.

Q: Which CPU has better integrated graphics?

A: The Ryzen 9 7940HS uses the Radeon 780M, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS uses the Radeon 760M. The data does not provide direct gaming benchmarks for these iGPUs, so a performance comparison cannot be made from the available numbers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Ryzen 9 7940HS is in Passmark integer math, where it scores 103044 against 72740, a delta of 41.7%. That is the most decisive gap in the entire dataset. Next is floating point math, where the Ryzen 9 hits 62897 versus 45481, a 38.3% lead. Data compression follows at 37.4% (365352 versus 265826), and extended instructions at 29.5% (27480 versus 21212). Data encryption shows 25.2% (21777 versus 17387). The Ryzen 9 also wins Passmark multithread by 27.7% (30098 versus 23569), physics by 20% (1450 versus 1208), and random string sorting by 19.5% (42386 versus 35472). Even in single-thread Passmark, it edges out the Ryzen 5 PRO by 0.5% (3878 versus 3858).

The Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS has two decisive wins. The biggest is Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 2787 against 1790, a 35.8% advantage. That is the largest margin of any benchmark in this comparison, but it is in a synthetic test that stresses one core. Its other win is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 19742 against 16713, a 15.3% lead. This is the only multi-core test where the Ryzen 5 PRO beats the Ryzen 9, and it is important because Cinebench R23 is widely used for comparing CPU rendering performance.

In Cinebench R15, the Ryzen 9 7940HS wins multi-core by 33.5% (2656 versus 1989) and single-core by 1.1% (283 versus 280). That is a stark contrast with the R23 results, which suggests the two processors scale very differently depending on the workload version. The Ryzen 9 7940HS wins 13 out of 15 head-to-head comparisons, but the two losses it has are in the most modern and computationally intense rendering tests. The data shows that the Ryzen 9 7940HS is faster in most synthetic and Passmark tests, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS has a clear edge in Cinebench R23.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the primary difference. The Ryzen 9 7940HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks differ: 4.00 GHz for the Ryzen 9 versus 4.30 GHz for the Ryzen 5 PRO. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, favoring the Ryzen 9. The TDP is 35 watts for the Ryzen 9 and 45 watts for the Ryzen 5 PRO, meaning the Ryzen 9 is rated for lower power draw. The socket differs: the Ryzen 9 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Ryzen 5 PRO uses AMD Socket FP7. The integrated graphics are different as well: the Ryzen 9 carries the Radeon 780M, and the Ryzen 5 PRO carries the Radeon 760M.

Both share the same memory support: DDR5, dual-channel, with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC. Both have Gen 4 PCIe with 20 lanes (CPU only). The process node, foundry, transistor count, and die size are identical: 4 nm TSMC, 25,000 million transistors, and 178 mm². Both have the same cache structure: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Both are multipliers locked and use Zen 4 architecture.

The part numbers differ: the Ryzen 9 uses 100-000000954 (FP7r2), 100-000000963 (FP7), and 100-000001128 (FP8), while the Ryzen 5 PRO uses 100-000001315 (FP7r2) and 100-000001388 (FP7). The release date for the Ryzen 5 PRO is 2024-04-15, while the Ryzen 9 has no recorded release date. Neither has a launch MSRP in the data.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are based on the same Zen 4 architecture, but they belong to different families. The Ryzen 9 7940HS is from the 7000 series and uses the Phoenix codename. The Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is from the 8000 series and uses the Hawk Point codename. Despite the different codenames, both are built on TSMC's 4 nm process node with the same transistor count (25,000 million) and same die size (178 mm²). The cache layout is identical: per-core L1 and L2, with a shared 16 MB L3. The core count difference is the key architectural difference, not the node or cache.

The integrated graphics differ. The Ryzen 9 features the Radeon 780M, while the Ryzen 5 PRO features the Radeon 760M. The data does not include benchmarks for the iGPUs, so the performance difference cannot be quantified. Both support ECC memory, which is unusual for mobile parts. Both have the same memory bandwidth and PCIe configuration. The TDP difference (35 vs 45 watts) may affect sustained performance in thin laptops, but the data shows the Ryzen 5 PRO still wins in Cinebench R23 despite the higher power budget.

The architecture is otherwise the same. The Ryzen 9 7940HS is a higher-bin part with more cores, but the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS has a higher base clock and a higher TDP. The recorded data suggests that the Ryzen 5 PRO is capable of higher clock speeds under load, which contributes to its Cinebench R23 win. The Ryzen 9 7940HS has a higher boost clock (5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz), but the Ryzen 5 PRO's higher base clock and TDP are likely why it wins in that specific rendering workload.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS is the better all-around processor. It wins 13 of 15 head-to-head benchmarks, including the entire Passmark suite that covers integer math, floating point, compression, encryption, and multithreaded work. If the workload is general productivity, software compilation, scientific computing, or any task that uses many cores, the Ryzen 9 7940HS is the clear choice. Its 8 cores and 16 threads give it a 27.7% lead in Passmark multithread and a 33.5% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is the unexpected winner in Cinebench R23. It beats the Ryzen 9 by 15.3% in multi-core and by 35.8% in single-core. For video rendering, 3D scene building, or any software that relies on Cinebench R23's engine, the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is the faster chip. This is a strong counterintuitive result, because the Ryzen 9 has more cores and a higher boost clock. The 45-watt TDP of the Ryzen 5 PRO, combined with its higher base clock, likely explains the difference.

The choice between the two depends on the specific software. If the work is rendering in modern applications that mirror Cinebench R23, the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is the pick. For everything else, the Ryzen 9 7940HS is the all-around faster CPU. The Ryzen 9 also has a higher integrated graphics tier (Radeon 780M versus 760M), which is a bonus for light gaming or media use, though the data does not quantify that difference.

In short, the Ryzen 9 7940HS is the safer recommendation for most users, because its multi-core dominance covers a wider range of tasks. The Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is the specialist for rendering workloads where Cinebench R23 performance matters most. Both are active, mobile processors with similar architecture, but the Ryzen 9's extra cores and higher boost clock win more tests. The Ryzen 5 PRO's higher base clock wins the most important rendering benchmark. Choose by workload, not by core count.