AMD Ryzen 7 7840H vs Intel Xeon Phi 7210 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Xeon Phi 7210. The margin of victory varies dramatically by workload, ranging from a narrow 2.6% advantage to a massive 730% lead. These results reflect two fundamentally different design philosophies, with the Ryzen 7 7840H dominating in every measured category.

The most lopsided victories come in single-threaded performance. In the PassMark single-thread test, the Ryzen 7 7840H scores 3641 against the Xeon Phi 7210's 460, a 691.5% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a similar story: 3350 versus 876, a 282.4% lead. These are not incremental improvements; they represent a generational gap in per-core efficiency. The Xeon Phi 7210's design, which prioritizes raw thread count, simply cannot keep pace when fewer cores are utilized.

Multi-threaded results are equally one-sided, though the margins are slightly less extreme. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen 7 7840H scores 23731 versus 6210, a 282.1% lead. The PassMark multi-thread test shows 27919 versus 7306, also a 282.1% difference. Interestingly, despite the Xeon Phi 7210 having 64 cores and 256 threads compared to the Ryzen's 8 cores and 16 threads, the AMD part still delivers roughly 3.8 times the multi-threaded throughput in these tests. This indicates that the Xeon Phi's massive core count does not translate into real-world performance advantages, likely due to its very low clock speeds and architectural inefficiencies.

Some workloads show closer competition. PassMark data compression is nearly a tie: 341520 versus 332960, a 2.6% edge for the Ryzen 7 7840H. PassMark integer math is also relatively close at 96692 versus 84874, a 13.9% lead. These results suggest that the Xeon Phi 7210 can partially leverage its thread count in certain integer-heavy tasks, but it still loses.

The largest margin in the entire dataset belongs to PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ryzen 7 7840H scores 83 versus 10, a 730% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to single-thread efficiency and clock speed, both of which heavily favor the AMD part. PassMark data encryption also shows a massive gap: 20162 versus 3455, a 483.6% lead, suggesting the Ryzen's modern instruction set and higher clocks provide a decisive edge in cryptographic workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7840H is dramatically faster in single-threaded tests. It scores 3641 in PassMark single-thread versus 460 for the Intel Xeon Phi 7210, a 691.5% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3350 versus 876, a 282.4% lead.

Q: Does the Xeon Phi 7210's higher core count help in any benchmark?

A: No. Despite having 64 cores and 256 threads versus 8 cores and 16 threads on the Ryzen 7 7840H, the Xeon Phi 7210 loses every multi-threaded benchmark. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD part scores 23731 versus 6210, a 282.1% lead.

Q: Which processor is more efficient for data compression tasks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7840H wins, but by a narrow margin. It scores 341520 in PassMark data compression versus 332960 for the Xeon Phi 7210, a 2.6% difference. This is the closest benchmark in the dataset.

Q: How do the processors compare in floating-point performance?

A: The Ryzen 7 7840H has a 100% advantage in PassMark floating-point math, scoring 58724 versus 29356 for the Xeon Phi 7210. This test measures raw computational throughput for scientific and engineering workloads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Ryzen 7 7840H has an average benchmark score of 29868, while the Xeon Phi 7210 averages 29245. This places both processors in the 81st percentile among all CPUs, but the AMD part maintains a consistent lead across individual tests.

Q: Which processor is better for encryption workloads?

A: The Ryzen 7 7840H is overwhelmingly better. In PassMark data encryption, it scores 20162 versus 3455 for the Xeon Phi 7210, a 483.6% advantage. This suggests the AMD processor's modern architecture provides substantial benefits for security-related tasks.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 7840H and Intel Xeon Phi 7210 represent two radically different approaches to processor design. The Ryzen 7 7840H is built on TSMC's 4 nm process node, featuring the Zen 4 architecture under the Phoenix codename. It contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. In contrast, the Xeon Phi 7210 uses Intel's 14 nm process with the Knights Landing architecture, containing 8,000 million transistors. The die size for the Intel part is not recorded in the database.

Cache configuration differs substantially. The Ryzen 7 7840H has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon Phi 7210 has 32 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, with no recorded L3 cache. This cache structure directly impacts performance: the Ryzen's larger per-core caches and shared L3 help maintain high throughput, while the Xeon Phi's minimal cache hierarchy struggles to feed its many cores.

Memory support also diverges. The Ryzen 7 7840H supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon Phi 7210 supports DDR4, but no memory bus width or bandwidth figures are recorded. Both processors support ECC memory, which is notable for the mobile-segment Ryzen part.

The Ryzen 7 7840H includes integrated Radeon 780M graphics, while the Xeon Phi 7210 has no integrated graphics recorded. The AMD part also features PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while no PCIe configuration is listed for the Intel part. The Ryzen is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8, whereas the Xeon Phi is a server/workstation part on Intel Socket 3647.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Ryzen 7 7840H has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon Phi 7210 has 64 cores and 256 threads. Base clocks are 3.80 GHz versus 1300.00 MHz, and boost clocks are 5.10 GHz versus 1500.00 MHz. The Ryzen's much higher clocks are a primary reason for its benchmark dominance.

Thermal design power differs by a factor of over six: the Ryzen 7 7840H has a 35 W TDP, while the Xeon Phi 7210 has a 215 W TDP. This means the AMD part delivers superior performance while consuming far less power, a critical consideration for mobile deployments.

The Ryzen 7 7840H is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC, while the Xeon Phi 7210 uses Intel's 14 nm process. Transistor counts are 25,000 million versus 8,000 million, and the Ryzen has a recorded die size of 178 mm² while the Intel part has none. The Ryzen supports DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth on a dual-channel bus; the Xeon Phi supports DDR4 with no bandwidth or bus width recorded.

The Ryzen 7 7840H is part of AMD's 7000 series with the Phoenix codename, while the Xeon Phi 7210 is a Knights Landing part from Intel. The AMD processor is marked as Active in production, while production status for the Intel part is not recorded. The release date for the Xeon Phi 7210 is June 19, 2016, while no release date is listed for the Ryzen 7 7840H. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon 780M graphics and PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes; the Xeon Phi has neither recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 7840H wins every benchmark in the database, so the "wins" discussion is about the magnitude and nature of its dominance. The Ryzen 7 7840H is particularly strong in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads. Its 691.5% lead in PassMark single-thread and 283.4% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core make it the clear choice for any application that relies on per-core performance, such as general desktop productivity, web browsing, or legacy software that uses few threads.

For heavily multi-threaded workloads, the Ryzen 7 7840H also wins decisively, but the margin is relatively smaller. Its 282.1% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 100% lead in floating-point math indicate that the 8-core, 16-thread design scales well enough to overcome the Xeon Phi's 64-core count. The Ryzen is the better option for rendering, scientific computing, and content creation that can use many threads.

The Xeon Phi 7210's only relative strength appears in data compression, where it comes within 2.6% of the Ryzen. This suggests that its many cores can partially compensate for low clock speeds in certain integer-heavy, parallel-friendly workloads. However, even there, it does not achieve a win.

For encryption and physics simulations, the Ryzen 7 7840H is overwhelmingly superior, with 483.6% and 557.1% leads respectively. For prime number finding, the Ryzen is 730% faster, indicating that this task is almost entirely dependent on single-thread efficiency rather than core count.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H is the superior processor in every measured category. With 17 wins and 0 losses in head-to-head benchmarks, it offers a minimum 2.6% advantage and up to a 730% advantage depending on the workload. Users who need single-threaded performance, which covers most everyday applications, will find the Ryzen 7 7840H to be roughly 3.8 times faster than the Xeon Phi 7210 in key tests.

The Intel Xeon Phi 7210, despite its 64 cores and 256 threads, cannot translate its massive thread count into performance wins. Its very low base clock of 1300.00 MHz and boost clock of 1500.00 MHz, combined with a 215 W TDP, make it an inefficient choice for most workloads. The Ryzen 7 7840H delivers better multi-threaded performance with a 35 W TDP, a fraction of the power draw.

The Ryzen 7 7840H is the clear pick for mobile users, workstation tasks, and any scenario where performance per watt matters. Its integrated Radeon 780M graphics and DDR5 memory support add further versatility. The Xeon Phi 7210, released in 2016, appears to be a specialized part that does not compete favorably against modern architecture in the recorded benchmarks. For any application represented in this dataset, the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H is the recommended choice.