AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS wins every recorded benchmark in the database against the AMD Ryzen 7 250. This is a complete sweep: 15 wins to 0. The margin varies dramatically by workload, from a narrow 2.3% in single-threaded tasks to a 102.2% blowout in Cinebench R23 single-core. The data is unambiguous: the PRO 8845HS is the faster processor in every measured category.

The largest victory comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the PRO 8845HS scores 3468 against 1715 for the Ryzen 7 250, a 102.2% advantage. This is more than double the score, an extraordinary gap for two processors sharing the same Zen 4 architecture and 5.10 GHz boost clock. The R23 multicore result also shows a massive split: 24565 versus 14676, a 67.4% lead. These two Cinebench results dominate the head-to-head comparison and indicate the PRO chip sustains far higher performance under load.

Cinebench R15 tells a similar but less extreme story. In R15 multicore, the PRO 8845HS posts 2476 against 2302, a 7.6% win. The R15 single-core gap is much larger at 29.7%, with scores of 349 and 269. The difference between the R15 and R23 margins suggests the two chips scale differently across benchmark generations, but the direction is consistent.

PassMark results reinforce the pattern across a wide range of workloads. The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, where the PRO 8845HS scores 3762 versus 3678, a 2.3% edge. This is the closest contest in the entire comparison, showing that lightly threaded, short-burst tasks are nearly equal. By contrast, PassMark physics shows a 21.1% lead for the PRO chip with 1389 versus 1147. Data compression favors the PRO 8845HS by 14.4% (343952 versus 300708), while data encryption shows a 16% gap (20487 versus 17661). Extended instructions produce a 17.7% difference, and random string sorting a 16.7% one.

Integer math is relatively close at 6.6% (97625 versus 91565), while floating point math shows a 10.7% gap (58965 versus 58965), wait, 58965 versus 53285, a 10.7% difference. Prime number finding is a 19.2% win for the PRO chip with 87 versus 73. The PassMark multithread score gives the PRO 8845HS a 13.9% edge, posting 28572 against 25089.

Across the full benchmark suite, the average benchmark score for the PRO 8845HS sits at 39325, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ryzen 7 250 has an average of 38221, also the 86th percentile. The 8845HS sits within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 4245P and 0.9% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS, while the Ryzen 7 250 is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14490F and 0.2% behind the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H. In every head-to-head comparison where the database provides rival comparisons, the PRO 8845HS outperforms its closest neighbor by margins between 0.1% and 0.8%, but the Ryzen 7 250 is similarly clustered near its neighbors with deltas of 0.1% to 0.2%. The overall percentile ranking is identical for both, meaning neither chip lands in the same performance tier among all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The PRO 8845HS wins everywhere, so the practical question is not which chip wins a given task, it is how much faster it is. For users who rely on single-core performance in rendering engines or single-threaded applications, the 102.2% R23 single-core lead means the PRO chip delivers over twice the performance, a decisive factor for workloads like legacy software that relies on a single core. The Ryzen 7 250 is within 2.3% in PassMark single-thread, so it is not far behind in daily responsiveness tasks, making it a perfectly adequate option for light usage. The Ryzen 7 250 also stays within 6.6% in integer math and 10.7% in floating point math, so it remains competitive in general productivity tasks that do not stress all cores continuously.

Multi-threaded rendering and heavy parallel processing heavily favor the PRO 8845HS by margins from 13.7% to 67.4%. The R23 multicore result is the standout at 67.4%, so compute-heavy tasks such as video encoding or 3D rendering will finish substantially sooner on the PRO chip. The Ryzen 7 250 trails by 14.4% in data compression, 16% in data encryption, 17.7% in extended instructions, and 19.2% in prime number finding, so any workload that uses these instruction patterns is moderately faster on the PRO chip. The 21.1% physics lead and 13.9% multithread lead round out a consistent picture: the PRO chip is not just faster in isolated tests, it is faster in every measured scenario.

The Ryzen 7 250 has no wins in the database, so there is no category where it comes out ahead. However, the data shows it is closest in single-thread and integer tasks, where it is within 6.6% at worst. If the workload is dominated by light, single-threaded office work or integer math, the Ryzen 7 250 is a reasonable choice, and the performance penalty is minimal.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename and the same 4 nm process node from TSMC. Both have 8 cores and 16 threads, both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 25,000 million transistors and a die size of 178 mm². Both support DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both use PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, and both integrate the Radeon 780M graphics. Both have the same 5.10 GHz boost clock. The base clock differs: the PRO 8845HS runs at 3.80 GHz while the Ryzen 7 250 runs at 3.30 GHz. The TDP also differs, with the PRO chip rated at 45 watts against 28 watts for the Ryzen 7 250. That power envelope difference explains much of the performance gap, since the PRO chip can draw more power and sustain higher clocks under load.

The socket differs as well. The PRO 8845HS uses AMD Socket FP7, while the Ryzen 7 250 uses AMD Socket FP8. This means they are not directly interchangeable in the same motherboard. The PRO chip supports ECC memory, the Ryzen 7 250 does not. The release dates are different: the PRO 8845HS launched in April 2024, while the Ryzen 7 250 launched in January 2025. Both are active production parts. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The PRO chip has two part numbers, one for FP7r2 and one for FP7, while the Ryzen 7 250 has a single part number. The PRO chip is from the 8000 series, while the Ryzen 7 250 has no series listed in the database.

The memory bandwidth is identical at 89.6 GB/s, and the integrated graphics are the same Radeon 780M, so the experience for tasks that rely primarily on the iGPU is similar. The ECC support on the PRO chip is the only memory-related feature that sets them apart beyond raw compute performance. The PRO chip is the older part, released about nine months earlier, yet it outperforms the newer chip in every benchmark, indicating that the newer release was not tuned for higher performance in this comparison.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS if raw performance is the priority. It wins every benchmark in the database by margins from 2.7% to 102.3%, and it does so with a higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and a higher TDP of 45 watts. The 102.2% R23 single-core lead is the headline: more than double the score. The PRO chip also offers ECC memory support and uses AMD Socket FP7. The 86th percentile ranking among all CPUs places it in the same tier as the Ryzen 7 250, but the average benchmark score of 39325 versus 38221 confirms the PRO chip is the stronger performer overall.

Pick the AMD Ryzen 7 250 if power efficiency is more important than performance. It runs at a 28 watt TDP versus 45 watts for the PRO chip, a meaningful reduction for thin-and-light laptops. The performance penalty is acceptable in lightly threaded work: it is only 2.3% behind in PassMark single-thread and 6.6% behind in integer math. The Ryzen 7 250 uses the newer socket FP8, launched in January 2025, and it does not support ECC memory. For users who prioritize battery life and portability over the extra performance headroom, the Ryzen 7 250 is the more sensible choice.

In every benchmark where the database provides a direct comparison, the PRO 8845HS wins. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the Ryzen 7 250 comes out ahead. The only question is whether the performance gap matters for the intended use case. For rendering, encryption, compression, or physics simulation, the PRO chip is clearly superior. For everyday single-threaded tasks, the difference is small enough that either processor will feel similar.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher Cinebench R23 multicore score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS scores 24565 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 67.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 250 score of 14676.

Q: How close are the two processors in single-threaded performance?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the PRO 8845HS scores 3762 versus 3678 for the Ryzen 7 250, a difference of only 2.3%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the PRO chip leads by 102.2% with 3468 versus 1715.

Q: Do both processors have the same integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 feature the Radeon 780M integrated graphics.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS has a TDP of 45 watts, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 has a TDP of 28 watts.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS has a base clock of 3.80 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 has a base clock of 3.30 GHz. Both have the same 5.10 GHz boost clock.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS | AMD Ryzen 7 250 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 28 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | AMD Socket FP8 |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2024-04-15 | 2025-01-05 |

| Series | 8000 series | None listed |

| Part Number | 100-000001316 (FP7r2), 100-000001387 (FP7) | 100-000001722 |

All other specifications, including cores (8), threads (16), boost clock (5.10 GHz), architecture (Zen 4), process node (4 nm), transistors (25,000 million), die size (178 mm²), cache sizes, memory support (DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s), PCIe (Gen 4, 20 Lanes), integrated graphics (Radeon 780M), and multiplier lock status, are identical between the two processors.