AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS vs Intel Xeon Phi 7210 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 has 64 cores and 256 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon Phi offers 8 times the core count and 16 times the thread count.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 has a base clock of 1300.00 MHz and a boost clock of 1500.00 MHz. The AMD part runs at significantly higher frequencies.

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 has a TDP of 215 watts. The Xeon Phi draws over 6 times the power envelope.

Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing node?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC, while the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 uses a 14 nm process from Intel. The AMD chip uses a substantially more advanced fabrication node.

Q: In the head-to-head benchmark comparison, how many tests did each processor win?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS won all 15 head-to-head benchmark tests. The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 did not win any of the recorded comparisons.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 supports DDR4 memory, and the database does not record a memory bus width or bandwidth for it.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS and Intel Xeon Phi 7210 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Ryzen 7 7840HS is a modern mobile processor built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix, and manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Xeon Phi 7210 uses the Knights Landing architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process, with 8,000 million transistors. The die size for the Xeon Phi is not recorded in the database.

The core topology differs dramatically. The Ryzen 7 7840HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, with 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 64 cores and 256 threads, with 32 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The Xeon Phi does not have a recorded L3 cache, which reflects its Knights Landing design where the L2 cache is the last-level cache per core.

The memory subsystems are also distinct. The Ryzen 7 7840HS supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus and records a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Xeon Phi 7210 supports DDR4 memory, but its memory bus and bandwidth are not listed in the database. Both processors support ECC memory. The Ryzen 7 7840HS includes integrated Radeon 780M graphics, while the Xeon Phi 7210 has no integrated graphics recorded.

The Ryzen 7 7840HS uses AMD Socket FP8, a mobile platform socket, and is classified in the mobile market segment. The Xeon Phi 7210 uses Intel Socket 3647 and is classified in the server/workstation segment. The Ryzen 7 7840HS supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while PCIe support for the Xeon Phi is not recorded. The Ryzen 7 7840HS belongs to the 7000 series and is produced by AMD, while the Xeon Phi 7210 belongs to the Xeon Phi family from Intel.

The production status of the Ryzen 7 7840HS is listed as Active, while the Xeon Phi 7210 has a release date of June 19, 2016, and its production status is not recorded in the database. The Ryzen 7 7840HS has multiple part numbers (100-000000955, 100-000000964, 100-000001129), while the Xeon Phi has part numbers SR2ME and SR2X4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head comparisons show a comprehensive sweep by the AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS across all 15 tests. The largest margin appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ryzen 7 scores 88 against the Xeon Phi's 10, a delta of 780%. The PassMark single-thread tests show a similar scale of dominance: the Ryzen 7 scores 3753 versus 460, a 715.9% advantage. These single-thread results highlight the massive per-core performance gap between the modern Zen 4 core and the older Knights Landing core.

In multi-threaded rendering, the Ryzen 7 7840HS remains ahead despite having far fewer threads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen 7 scores 15102 against the Xeon Phi's 6210, a 143.2% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows an even larger gap: 2222.84 versus 625, a 255.7% delta. The PassMark multithread test records 28633 for the Ryzen 7 and 7306 for the Xeon Phi, a 291.9% difference. These results indicate that the Ryzen 7's 8 high-performance cores outperform the Xeon Phi's 64 lower-performance cores in these workloads.

The data encryption test shows a 497% advantage for the Ryzen 7 7840HS, scoring 20627 against 3455. Physics simulation in PassMark shows a 594.9% delta, with scores of 1376 and 198. Random string sorting records a 350.7% lead, 40364 versus 8956. Floating point math shows a 104.1% advantage, 59921 versus 29356. Extended instructions are 40.2% faster on the Ryzen 7, with 25747 versus 18359. Integer math shows a narrower but still clear 16.3% lead, 98682 versus 84874.

The closest recorded margin is in data compression, where the Ryzen 7 7840HS scores 345536 against the Xeon Phi's 332960, a 3.8% delta. This is the only test where the Xeon Phi's high thread count appears to nearly close the gap, though it still loses. The Ryzen 7 7840HS also wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 101% (1761 versus 876) and Cinebench R15 single-core by 211.4% (274 versus 88). Across all 15 head-to-head tests, the Ryzen 7 7840HS records 15 wins and the Xeon Phi 7210 records 0 wins.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification category. The Ryzen 7 7840HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon Phi 7210 has 64 cores and 256 threads. The base clock differs from 3.80 GHz on the AMD part to 1300.00 MHz on the Intel part, and boost clocks differ from 5.10 GHz to 1500.00 MHz. TDP differs from 35 watts to 215 watts.

The manufacturing process differs from 4 nm (TSMC) to 14 nm (Intel). Transistor counts differ from 25,000 million to 8,000 million, and die size is 178 mm² for the AMD part while not recorded for the Intel part. Cache configurations differ: L1 is 64 KB per core versus 32 KB per core, L2 is 1 MB per core versus 512 KB per core, and the AMD part has 16 MB of shared L3 while the Intel part has no L3 recorded.

Memory support differs from DDR5 to DDR4. The memory bus is dual-channel for the AMD part and not recorded for the Intel part. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the AMD part and not recorded for the Intel part. The socket differs from AMD Socket FP8 to Intel Socket 3647. The AMD part has integrated Radeon 780M graphics, while the Intel part has none recorded. The market segment differs from Mobile to Server/Workstation.

The production status is Active for the AMD part and not recorded for the Intel part. The release date is not recorded for the AMD part, while the Intel part was released on June 19, 2016. The AMD part belongs to the 7000 series, while the Intel part has no series recorded. Both processors have locked multipliers, and both support ECC memory. The AMD part has PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes recorded; the Intel part has no PCIe data recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its advantages are most pronounced in single-threaded and latency-sensitive workloads. The PassMark single-thread score of 3753 versus 460 indicates a dominant position for applications that rely on a few fast cores, such as general desktop use, web browsing, office productivity, and lightly threaded creative applications. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1761 versus 876 reinforces this pattern.

The Ryzen 7 7840HS also wins in multi-threaded workloads despite its lower core count. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15102 versus 6210 shows that rendering tasks favor the AMD part. The PassMark physics score of 1376 versus 198 and the encryption score of 20627 versus 3455 suggest that simulation and security workloads run substantially faster on the Ryzen 7. The floating point math score of 59921 versus 29356 indicates strength in numerical workloads.

The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its closest result is in data compression, where it scores 332960 against 345536, a gap of only 3.8%. This suggests that the Xeon Phi's 256 threads can nearly match the Ryzen 7 in highly parallel compression tasks, but it still falls short. The Xeon Phi's 64 cores and 256 threads provide a theoretical advantage in massively parallel throughput, but the recorded data does not show any workload where that advantage translates into a win.

The Ryzen 7 7840HS also records a higher average benchmark score of 29955, compared to the Xeon Phi's 29245. Both processors sit at the 81st percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Ryzen 7's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS at a 0% delta, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT at 0.3%, the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H at 0.3%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X at 0.8%. The Xeon Phi's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-13500HX at -0.1%, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X at 0.4%, the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H at 0.5%, and the AMD EPYC 9654 at -0.6%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data directs a clear choice toward the AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS for virtually all recorded workloads. It wins all 15 head-to-head tests, often by very large margins. The single-thread dominance (715.9% in PassMark single-thread, 211.4% in Cinebench R15 single-core, 101% in Cinebench R23 single-core) makes it the obvious pick for everyday applications, interactive work, and any software that does not scale perfectly across hundreds of threads. The multi-thread wins (255.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 143.2% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 291.9% in PassMark multithread) also make it the better choice for rendering and content creation, despite the Xeon Phi's 8 times higher core count.

The Ryzen 7 7840HS also offers practical advantages recorded in the specifications: a 35 watt TDP versus 215 watts, a 4 nm process versus 14 nm, DDR5 memory support, integrated Radeon 780M graphics, and a mobile socket. The Xeon Phi 7210's only recorded strengths are its raw core and thread counts, its larger L2 cache per core (512 KB versus 1 MB per core, though the AMD part has more L1 and L2 per core), and its server/workstation classification. None of these translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

Users who need a processor for a mobile platform, general computing, or software that benefits from high clock speeds and modern architecture should choose the AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS. Users who require a server/workstation processor with an extremely high thread count for specialized massively parallel workloads might consider the Intel Xeon Phi 7210, but the recorded benchmarks do not show any advantage for it. The data supports the Ryzen 7 7840HS as the stronger processor in every measured category.