AMD Ryzen 7 8700F vs AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS and the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is heavily one-sided. Across 23 recorded tests, the Ryzen 7 8700F wins 19, while the Ryzen 9 7940HS claims only 4. The magnitude of the victories, however, tells a more nuanced story than the win count alone.

The most striking difference appears in the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen 7 8700F scores 26646 against the Ryzen 9 7940HS's 16713, a 37.3% advantage. The single-core gap is even larger proportionally: 3761 versus 1790, a 52.4% difference. Cinebench R15 shows the same pattern in miniature, with the 8700F winning multi-core 2685 to 2656 (a modest 1.1% edge) but dominating single-core 378 to 283, a 25.1% margin. These results indicate the 8700F sustains considerably higher clocks under both lightly threaded and fully loaded workloads.

Geekbench results align with this trend. The 8700F leads multi-core 13523 to 12724, a 5.9% edge, and single-core 2290 to 2144, a 6.4% margin. The 3DMark thread scaling tests also favor the desktop chip across the board: 16-thread scores are 7883 versus 7553 (4.2% ahead), 8-thread 6559 versus 6205 (5.4% ahead), and max-thread 7861 versus 7558 (3.9% ahead). Even the 2-thread and 4-thread tests show consistent, if smaller, advantages of 1.9% and 3.0% respectively. The single-thread 3DMark test is nearly a tie, with the 8700F ahead by just 0.5% (1008 versus 1003).

PassMark results are more mixed. The Ryzen 7 8700F wins data compression 378160 to 365352 (3.4% ahead), data encryption 22117 to 21777 (1.5% ahead), extended instructions 28474 to 27480 (3.5% ahead), find prime numbers 98 to 92 (6.1% ahead), multi-thread 30893 to 30098 (2.6% ahead), physics 1553 to 1450 (6.6% ahead), and random string sorting 45425 to 42386 (6.7% ahead). The Ryzen 9 7940HS fights back in integer math, scoring 103044 versus 100371, a 2.7% win, and floating point math 62897 versus 62629, a narrow 0.4% margin. The two chips are effectively tied in PassMark single-thread scores, with the 7940HS ahead by just 0.2% (3878 versus 3872).

The overall database averages reflect this split. The Ryzen 9 7940HS has an average benchmark score of 31593, while the Ryzen 7 8700F sits at 30746. Both land at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs. The 7940HS sits 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-13500 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H, and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX and Intel Core 7 240H. The 8700F trails the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS by 0.4%, leads the Intel Core i5-13600H by 0.6%, leads the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T by 0.9%, and trails the Intel Core i7-13700TE by 0.9%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F boosts to 5.00 GHz. Despite the lower boost specification, the 8700F wins the majority of benchmark comparisons.

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

A: Yes, both the Ryzen 9 7940HS and the Ryzen 7 8700F have 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins by a substantial 37.3% margin, scoring 26646 versus the Ryzen 9 7940HS's 16713.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Ryzen 9 7940HS comes out ahead?

A: Yes. The Ryzen 9 7940HS wins PassMark integer math (103044 versus 100371, a 2.7% advantage), PassMark floating point math (62897 versus 62629, a 0.4% advantage), and PassMark single-thread (3878 versus 3872, a 0.2% advantage). These are its only four wins out of 23 tests.

Q: How do the two chips compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 9 7940HS has an average benchmark score of 31593, which is higher than the Ryzen 7 8700F's 30746. Both are at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Do both processors use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename, using TSMC's 4 nm process node.

Architecture Differences

Despite sharing the same Zen 4 architecture, the Phoenix codename, the TSMC 4 nm process, 25,000 million transistors, and a 178 mm² die size, the two processors diverge in several meaningful ways.

The Ryzen 9 7940HS is a mobile part with a thermal design power of 35 watts, while the Ryzen 7 8700F is a desktop part rated at 65 watts. This 30-watt difference in power envelope helps explain why the desktop chip sustains higher performance in threaded workloads. The 7940HS uses AMD Socket FP8, whereas the 8700F uses AMD Socket AM5.

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The 7940HS has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 8700F has a higher base clock of 4.10 GHz but a lower boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The benchmark data suggests the desktop chip holds higher effective clocks under load, particularly in single-threaded Cinebench tests where it leads by over 50%.

Cache hierarchies are identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 dual-channel for both, but the memory bandwidth figures differ. The 7940HS records 89.6 GB/s, while the 8700F records 83.2 GB/s. ECC memory support also differs: the 7940HS supports it, the 8700F does not.

The integrated graphics situation is a major differentiator. The Ryzen 9 7940HS includes a Radeon 780M iGPU, while the Ryzen 7 8700F has no integrated graphics at all. Both use PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes for the CPU. The 7940HS has a locked multiplier, while the 8700F has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

The 8700F belongs to the 8000 series and carries a launch MSRP of $270. The 7940HS belongs to the 7000 series and has no recorded launch MSRP. The 8700F was released on 2024-03-31, while the 7940HS has no release date recorded in the database. Both are listed as active production parts.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for most workloads. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is the stronger performer in 19 of 23 benchmark tests, with particularly decisive wins in single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench workloads. The 52.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and the 37.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core are the largest margins recorded between these two chips. For rendering, productivity, and general desktop responsiveness, the 8700F is the better choice according to the recorded measurements.

The Ryzen 9 7940HS retains a few specific advantages. It wins in PassMark integer math, floating point math, and single-thread tests, though by small margins of 2.7%, 0.4%, and 0.2% respectively. Its higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s may benefit memory-sensitive workloads, and its integrated Radeon 780M graphics mean it does not require a discrete GPU for basic display output. The 7940HS also has a higher average benchmark score overall (31593 versus 30746), although this figure is influenced by the specific test suite composition.

Users who need a self-contained mobile processor with integrated graphics should look at the 7940HS. Users who want maximum CPU performance in a desktop system, particularly for multi-threaded rendering or single-threaded applications, should prefer the 8700F. The 8700F's unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for overclocking, while the 7940HS is locked.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded specifications:

• Series: Ryzen 9 7940HS is 7000 series; Ryzen 7 8700F is 8000 series.
• Generation: Ryzen 9 (Zen 4 (Phoenix)) versus Ryzen 7 (Zen 4 (Phoenix)).
• Base clock: 4.00 GHz versus 4.10 GHz.
• Boost clock: 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz.
• TDP: 35 watts versus 65 watts.
• Socket: AMD Socket FP8 versus AMD Socket AM5.
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Supported versus not supported.
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 780M versus N/A.
• Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop.
• Multiplier unlocked: No versus Yes.
• Part number: 100-000000954 (FP7r2), 100-000000963 (FP7), 100-000001128 (FP8) versus 100-000001590.
• Release date: Not recorded versus 2024-03-31.
• Launch MSRP: Not recorded versus $270.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins across the vast majority of the benchmark suite. Its strongest territory is Cinebench, where it holds leads of 37.3% in R23 multi-core, 52.4% in R23 single-core, 1.1% in R15 multi-core, and 25.1% in R15 single-core. It also wins every 3DMark thread-count test, with margins ranging from 0.5% at single-thread to 5.4% at 8-thread. Geekbench favors the 8700F by 5.9% multi-core and 6.4% single-core. PassMark tests largely favor the 8700F as well, including data compression (3.4%), data encryption (1.5%), extended instructions (3.5%), prime numbers (6.1%), multi-thread (2.6%), physics (6.6%), and random string sorting (6.7%). This is the processor for anyone whose workloads rely on raw CPU throughput, sustained multi-core execution, or single-threaded responsiveness.

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS wins four tests, all in the PassMark suite. Its largest victory is integer math, where it leads by 2.7% (103044 versus 100371). It also edges out the 8700F in floating point math by 0.4% (62897 versus 62629) and in single-thread by 0.2% (3878 versus 3872). These margins are small, but they indicate the 7940HS retains a slight advantage in certain integer and floating point arithmetic workloads. Its higher memory bandwidth and integrated Radeon 780M graphics further distinguish it as the more versatile mobile package, even if the raw CPU benchmark results favor the desktop part. For users who need an all-in-one mobile processor with graphics output and ECC memory support, the 7940HS is the only option between these two.