AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS vs AMD Ryzen 7 8700G Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700G and AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS look like siblings on paper: both are 8-core, 16-thread AMD parts with 16 MB of shared L3 cache, dual-channel DDR5 support, PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, and integrated Radeon graphics. The recorded data tells a one-sided story once the benchmarks start, though the two chips sit in completely different worlds for socket, power envelope, and target platform. One is a desktop AM5 processor with an unlocked multiplier; the other is a mobile FP7 chip designed for thin machines. Understanding that split matters more than any single score here.

The Verdict

The 8700G wins every single head-to-head test in the database, 17 out of 17, so the choice comes down to platform needs rather than raw performance. If you are building or buying a desktop on Socket AM5 and want the faster chip, the 8700G is the answer, full stop. Its smallest recorded win is 22.2 percent in Cinebench R15 single-core and its largest is 83.9 percent in PassMark find prime numbers, so there is no workload in the recorded set where the 6800HS comes out ahead.

The 6800HS makes sense only in its native context: it is a mobile part on Socket FP7 with a 35 W TDP, meaning it ships soldered into laptops and cannot be dropped into a desktop board anyway. Its role is efficiency inside a thin notebook, not competing with a 65 W desktop chip at the wall. The data shows both CPUs landing in the 83rd percentile against all CPUs in the database, which is respectable territory for each, but the 8700G gets there with substantially higher scores across the board.

For a desktop builder, the practical read is simple: the 8700G delivers roughly a quarter to over half more performance depending on the workload, has an unlocked multiplier for tuning, and carries a launch MSRP of $329. The 6800HS is not something you choose against it, it is something you get when you buy a laptop that contains it.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the 8700G in multi-core workloads?

A: The gap ranges from 35.5 percent in Cinebench R15 multi-core (2693 vs 1987) to 53.3 percent in Geekbench multi-core (14584 vs 9515). PassMark multithread lands in between at 39 percent (31690 vs 22801).

Q: What about single-core performance?

A: The 8700G leads by 22.2 percent in Cinebench R15 (286 vs 234), 24.9 percent in Cinebench R23 (1817 vs 1455), 41.5 percent in Geekbench (2337 vs 1652), and 23.4 percent in PassMark single thread (3928 vs 3184). Single-threaded gaps of this size are very noticeable in everyday responsiveness.

Q: Can I put either CPU in the same motherboard?

A: No. The 8700G uses AMD Socket AM5 on the desktop; the 6800HS uses AMD Socket FP7, a mobile package found in laptops. They are not interchangeable.

Q: How do they compare against other CPUs in the database?

A: Both sit in the 83rd percentile versus all CPUs. The 8700G's average benchmark score of 33089 is essentially identical to the Intel Core i7-13650HX (33089, 0 percent delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX (33091, 0 percent), and the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D (33079, 0 percent). The 6800HS's average of 32354 is similarly level with the Intel Core i5-14400F (32279), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 7645 (32446), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233).

Q: Which has better integrated graphics?

A: The 8700G carries the Radeon 780M and the 6800HS carries the Radeon 680M. The database does not record iGPU benchmark scores for this comparison, so no numeric claim can be made, but the 780M is the newer pairing alongside the Zen 4 architecture.

Q: Can both chips be overclocked?

A: Only the 8700G. Its multiplier is unlocked; the 6800HS's is locked, as is typical for mobile silicon.

Architecture Differences

These are two different generations of AMD silicon. The 8700G is a Zen 4 design codenamed Phoenix, built on TSMC's 4 nm process, with 25,000 million transistors packed into a 178 mm² die. The 6800HS is a Zen 3+ design codenamed Rembrandt on TSMC's 6 nm process, with a larger 208 mm² die and no transistor count recorded in the database.

The cache hierarchy is where the per-core difference shows. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 per core and the same 16 MB of shared L3, but the 8700G doubles L2 to 1 MB per core versus 512 KB per core on the 6800HS. That extra L2, combined with the newer core design, is a large part of why the 8700G sweeps every test, including the single-threaded ones.

Other architectural facts line up closely: both support dual-channel DDR5, both offer PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, and neither supports ECC memory. Neither part has 3D V-Cache. The 8700G is an Active desktop product released on January 7, 2024; the 6800HS is an Active mobile product with no release date recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The table of differences is short but consequential:

• Socket: AM5 (desktop) vs FP7 (mobile)
• Architecture: Zen 4 (Phoenix) vs Zen 3+ (Rembrandt)
• Process node: 4 nm vs 6 nm
• Base clock: 4.20 GHz vs 3.20 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.10 GHz vs 4.70 GHz
• TDP: 65 W vs 35 W
• L2 cache: 1 MB per core vs 512 KB per core
• Memory bandwidth: 83.2 GB/s vs 76.8 GB/s
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 780M vs Radeon 680M
• Die size: 178 mm² vs 208 mm²
• Unlocked multiplier: Yes vs No
• Market segment: Desktop vs Mobile

Everything else is shared: 8 cores, 16 threads, 64 KB L1 per core, 16 MB shared L3, DDR5 support, dual-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, no ECC, and TSMC as the foundry. The clock spread is worth dwelling on: a full gigahertz higher base clock and 400 MHz higher boost for the 8700G, enabled by nearly double the TDP headroom.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sweep is total, but the size of the wins varies by workload type, and that variation is informative.

Rendering shows a consistent, large gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core goes to the 8700G at 17128 versus 11992, a 42.8 percent win, and R15 multi-core lands at 2693 versus 1987, 35.5 percent. Single-core rendering is tighter but still decisive: 1817 vs 1455 in R23 (24.9 percent) and 286 vs 234 in R15 (22.2 percent).

Geekbench favors the 8700G more heavily than anything else in the rendering suite: 14584 vs 9515 multi-core (53.3 percent) and 2337 vs 1652 single-core (41.5 percent). That single-core gap is unusually wide relative to the clock difference alone, suggesting the Zen 4 core itself is doing real work here, not just frequency.

The PassMark suite contains the most extreme results. Find prime numbers is the biggest blowout in the entire dataset at 83.9 percent (103 vs 56). Physics is next at 63.2 percent (1647 vs 1009). Random string sorting goes to the 8700G by 52.1 percent (46025 vs 30266), extended instructions by 44.5 percent (29067 vs 20114), multithread by 39 percent (31690 vs 22801), floating point math by 34.3 percent (63815 vs 47533), data compression by 32.2 percent (386811 vs 292698), data encryption by 26.2 percent (22842 vs 18104), integer math by 22.4 percent (103107 vs 84228), and single thread by 23.4 percent (3928 vs 3184).

The pattern across all 17 tests: single-threaded wins cluster in the low-to-mid twenties percent, multi-threaded wins stretch into the forties and fifties, and a few integer-heavy or physics-style tests explode past sixty percent.

Where Each One Wins

Strictly from the recorded data, the 8700G wins everywhere. There is no workload split to negotiate. If a task exists in this benchmark set, the 8700G does it faster, from burst single-thread work to sustained all-core rendering to integer math and encryption. Anyone choosing between these two for performance reasons has a trivial decision.

Where the 6800HS "wins" is outside the score column: it does everything it does within a 35 W TDP in a laptop chassis, where the 8700G's 65 W desktop envelope and AM5 socket are simply not options. Its rivals in the database are other mobile and mainstream parts like the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U and Core i5-14400F, not desktop flagships, and against that field it holds a solid 83rd percentile position.

Practical takeaway: buy the machine, not just the chip. Desktop builder who wants the stronger all-around performer with an unlocked multiplier and the newer Zen 4 core: the 8700G. Shopper evaluating thin-and-light laptops who finds a 6800HS machine: it is a capable performer for its class, just do not expect it to trade blows with a 65 W desktop part, because the data shows it never does.