AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is the clear performance leader in this comparison, winning all 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X. The data shows a decisive generational shift: the 8845HS delivers anywhere from 17.1% to 60.4% higher scores across every tested workload, despite being a mobile processor with a dramatically lower TDP. The 2700X, a desktop part from the 2000 series, cannot match the architectural efficiency of the 8845HS's Zen 4 design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in PassMark's extended instructions test, where the 8845HS scores 25,642 versus the 2700X's 10,155 — a massive 60.4% advantage. This reflects the newer ISA and wider execution resources of Zen 4. Similarly, in PassMark's find prime numbers test, the 8845HS scores 87 versus 41, a 52.9% lead, showing superior integer throughput per clock.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 8845HS posts 2,575 against the 2700X's 1,762, a 31.6% margin. The single-core gap is even larger: 276 versus 175.7, a 36.3% difference. This pattern repeats in Geekbench, where the 8845HS scores 12,212 multi-core (42.3% ahead) and 2,081 single-core (40% ahead). The 2700X's Zen architecture simply cannot keep pace with the per-thread performance of Zen 4.

The gap narrows somewhat in memory-sensitive workloads but remains substantial. In PassMark data compression, the 8845HS scores 344,439 versus 266,134 — a 22.7% lead. Data encryption shows 20,416 versus 16,929, a 17.1% margin, the smallest of any test. Floating-point math demonstrates a 45% lead (59,254 vs 32,563), while integer math shows a 35.1% advantage (97,747 vs 63,485). The 8845HS also dominates in multithreaded throughput (28,498 vs 17,468, a 38.7% lead) and physics simulation (1,347 vs 792, a 41.2% gap). Random string sorting shows a 26.3% edge (41,446 vs 30,563). Across the board, the 8845HS wins by double-digit margins, with no test where the 2700X comes within single digits.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 2700X has an average benchmark score of 30,213, while the 8845HS scores 29,955. Despite the 8845HS winning every head-to-head test, the two have nearly identical overall averages, differing by less than 1%.

Q: Is the 8845HS faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: Yes. In PassMark single-thread, the 8845HS scores 3,738 versus 2,417 for the 2700X — a 35.3% advantage. Geekbench single-core shows a similar gap: 2,081 versus 1,248, a 40% lead.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core performance?

A: The 8845HS wins decisively. Cinebench R15 multi-core scores 2,575 versus 1,762 (31.6% lead), Geekbench multi-core shows 12,212 versus 7,045 (42.3% lead), and PassMark multithread posts 28,498 versus 17,468 (38.7% lead).

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 8 cores and 16 threads. The performance difference comes entirely from architecture, clock speeds, and memory support, not core count.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The 8845HS boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the 2700X boosts to 4.35 GHz. The 8845HS also has a slightly higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 3.70 GHz.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The 8845HS has a TDP of 45 watts, while the 2700X has a TDP of 105 watts. The 8845HS delivers far higher performance while drawing less than half the power budget.

Architecture Differences

The 8845HS is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The 2700X uses the first-generation Zen architecture with the Pinnacle Ridge codename, produced on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This node difference is stark: the 8845HS packs 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the 2700X has 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The 2700X has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core. The 8845HS has 64 KB of L1 per core but 1 MB of L2 per core, doubling the per-core L2 capacity. Both share 16 MB of L3 cache. The 8845HS also integrates Radeon 780M graphics, while the 2700X has no integrated graphics at all.

The 8845HS supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 2700X supports only DDR4, also dual-channel, with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth — roughly half the memory throughput. PCIe support also differs: the 8845HS offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), whereas the 2700X provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Neither supports ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is market segment: the 2700X is a Desktop processor on AMD Socket AM4, while the 8845HS is a Mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8. The 2700X has an unlocked multiplier; the 8845HS does not. The 2700X was released on 2018-04-18 with a launch MSRP of $329. The 8845HS released on 2023-12-05 with no launch MSRP listed.

Clock speeds favor the 8845HS: 3.80 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost versus 3.70 GHz base and 4.35 GHz boost for the 2700X. TDP is dramatically different at 45 watts versus 105 watts. The 8845HS has integrated graphics (Radeon 780M), while the 2700X has none. Process node is 4 nm versus 12 nm, and foundry is TSMC versus GlobalFoundries. Transistor count is 25,000 million versus 4,800 million, with die sizes of 178 mm² versus 213 mm². Memory support is DDR5 versus DDR4, with bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 4 with 20 lanes versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS. It wins every single benchmark comparison, with leads ranging from 17.1% to 60.4%. The 8845HS achieves this while consuming only 45 watts of power, compared to the 2700X's 105 watts. This is not a close contest — it is a generational wipeout.

The 2700X does match the 8845HS in aggregate average benchmark score (30,213 vs 29,955), but this is misleading. The 8845HS's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS with a 0% delta, the Ryzen 7 5800XT at 0.3%, and the Ryzen 5 9600X at 0.8%. The 2700X's nearest rivals are the Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U (-0.1%), Ryzen 7 7736U (-0.5%), and Ryzen 5 7640HS (-0.6%). Both sit at the 81st percentile of all CPUs, but the 8845HS does so from a mobile platform with far lower power requirements.

For anyone building a new system, the 8845HS is the only rational choice based on performance data. The 2700X is a capable desktop processor, but it cannot compete with the newer architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The 8845HS wins in every measurable category. In single-threaded performance, it leads by 35.3% (PassMark) and 40% (Geekbench). In multi-threaded workloads, it leads by 38.7% (PassMark) and 42.3% (Geekbench). In memory-intensive tasks like data compression, it leads by 22.7%; in encryption, 17.1%; in floating-point and integer math, 45% and 35.1% respectively. It wins in extended instruction throughput by 60.4% and in prime number finding by 52.9%. Physics simulation shows a 41.2% advantage, and random string sorting shows a 26.3% edge.

The 2700X has no benchmark wins at all. Its only advantage is the desktop platform with an unlocked multiplier, which allows overclocking — a feature the 8845HS lacks. It also has a lower launch MSRP of $329, though the 8845HS has no listed launch price. For users who require a socketed desktop CPU with overclocking headroom, the 2700X remains relevant. For everyone else, the 8845HS is superior across the board.

The functional takeaway is clear: the 8845HS delivers desktop-class performance in a mobile package, while the 2700X represents an older generation that has been fully surpassed. Any workload — from single-threaded responsiveness to heavily threaded rendering — will run faster on the 8845HS. The only reason to choose the 2700X is if the desktop form factor and unlocked multiplier are hard requirements. Otherwise, the 8845HS is the definitive winner in this matchup.