AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS vs AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS are both 8-core, 16-thread mobile processors built on TSMC's 4 nm process and confined to the same 28 W thermal envelope on AMD Socket FP8. On paper they look nearly identical, but the recorded benchmark data tells a different story: the Zen 5-based Ryzen AI 7 350 wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, including dominant leads in Cinebench multi-core workloads, while the older Zen 4-based Hawk Point chip holds a few narrow wins in integer and encryption tasks. The database places both chips in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, with average scores of 34222 and 33667 respectively, so the gap is real but concentrated in specific workload types.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its average benchmark score of 34222 sits above the Ryzen 7 8840HS's 33667, and it leads by 22.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the single largest spread in the dataset.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 8840HS win anything?

A: Yes, four tests. It takes passmark data encryption by 13.6% (17650 versus 15244), integer math by 5.2% (90382 versus 85651), random string sorting by 6.3% (35517 versus 33266), and passmark multithread by a negligible 0.2% (24990 versus 24935).

Q: How do they compare in single-core performance?

A: The Ryzen AI 7 350 leads across every single-core test recorded: Cinebench R23 single-core by 12.7% (1958 versus 1737), Geekbench single-core by 14% (2164 versus 1899), Cinebench R15 single-core by 8.9% (294 versus 270), and passmark single-thread by 5.7% (3834 versus 3626).

Q: Do they have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes. Both are 8-core, 16-thread mobile processors with a 28 W TDP, a dual-channel memory bus, and 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth on AMD Socket FP8.

Q: Which integrated graphics does each chip include?

A: The Ryzen AI 7 350 ships with the Radeon 860M, while the Ryzen 7 8840HS ships with the Radeon 780M. The database does not record graphics benchmark results for either iGPU, so no direct comparison can be drawn from this data.

Q: Where does each chip sit relative to other CPUs?

A: Both land in the 84th percentile versus all CPUs in the database. The Ryzen AI 7 350's average score is within 0.3% of chips like the Intel Core i5-13450HX and the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, while the Ryzen 7 8840HS is within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent consecutive CPU architectures from AMD. The Ryzen AI 7 350 is a Zen 5 design, codenamed Krackan Point, belonging to the Ryzen AI 300 generation that mixes Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The Ryzen 7 8840HS is a Zen 4 design, codenamed Hawk Point, from the Ryzen 7 8000 series. Both are fabbed by TSMC on a 4 nm node, so the performance gap comes from microarchitecture and cache configuration rather than a process advantage.

Cache is where the designs diverge most visibly. The Zen 5 chip carries 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, but only 8 MB of L3. The Hawk Point part pairs a smaller 64 KB per-core L1 with the same 1 MB per-core L2, yet doubles L3 capacity to 16 MB shared. This trade-off, a wider front end with more L1 versus a deeper L3 pool, maps cleanly onto the benchmark split: the Ryzen AI 7 350 dominates latency-sensitive application tests, while the 8840HS occasionally holds its ground in throughput tests that benefit from the larger shared cache.

Clock behavior also differs. The Ryzen AI 7 350 has a lower 2.00 GHz base clock against the 8840HS's 3.30 GHz, but the two boost ceilings are close, at 5.00 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. Despite the older chip's slightly higher boost figure, the Zen 5 design consistently posts higher single-core scores, indicating better per-clock efficiency in the recorded tests.

Memory support favors the newer platform. The Ryzen AI 7 350 accepts both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, whereas the 8840HS lists DDR5 only, though both share the same dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe also differs: the 8840HS exposes 20 Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Ryzen AI 7 350 lists 16. Die size is larger on the newer chip at 195 mm² versus 178 mm², and the 8840HS is the only one of the pair with a recorded transistor count, at 25,000 million.

Where Each One Wins

The workload split is unusually clean. The Ryzen AI 7 350 owns rendering, general application performance, physics simulation, and all single-threaded work. Its Cinebench leads (21.1% in R15 multi-core, 22.4% in R23 multi-core) make it the clear choice for content creation, 3D rendering, and any sustained all-core load measured by the suite. Its 17.4% physics win (1349 versus 1149) further reinforces strength in simulation-style workloads, and its 15.6% Geekbench multi-core lead covers general productivity bursts.

The Ryzen 7 8840HS wins are narrower and workload-specific. Its 13.6% encryption advantage (17650 versus 15244) makes it the stronger recorded performer for cryptographic workloads such as encrypted storage or VPN traffic. Its 5.2% integer math and 6.3% string sorting wins suggest an edge in parsing-heavy or integer-bound legacy code paths. The 0.2% passmark multithread win is effectively a tie and should not influence any purchase decision on its own.

Notably, the two chips tie almost exactly in one area: passmark multithread (24935 versus 24990) and find prime numbers (80 versus 79) are within measurement noise, showing that the 8840HS can match aggregate throughput in some integer-heavy threaded tests even while losing badly in floating-point rendering loads.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Zen 5 (Krackan Point, Ryzen AI 300) versus Zen 4 (Hawk Point, 8000 series)
• Base clock: 2.00 GHz versus 3.30 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.00 GHz versus 5.10 GHz
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core
• L3 cache: 8 MB versus 16 MB shared
• Die size: 195 mm² versus 178 mm²
• Transistors: not recorded versus 25,000 million
• Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X versus DDR5 only
• PCIe: Gen 4, 16 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 4, 20 lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 860M versus Radeon 780M
• Release date: January 2025 versus December 2023

Everything else is shared: 8 cores, 16 threads, 28 W TDP, Socket FP8, 4 nm TSMC fabrication, 1 MB L2 per core, dual-channel memory at 89.6 GB/s, no ECC, locked multipliers, and active production status. Neither chip has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Starting with the biggest gaps, the rendering suite is a rout. In Cinebench R23 multi-core the Ryzen AI 7 350 scores 16014.5 against 13082, a 22.4% win. Cinebench R15 multi-core goes the same way, 2477 versus 2045, a 21.1% lead. These are the two largest margins in the dataset and they represent sustained, all-core floating-point throughput, the workload class where Zen 5 pulls hardest.

Single-core results echo the same story at smaller margins. Geekbench single-core: 2164 versus 1899, 14% for the Ryzen AI 7 350. Cinebench R23 single-core: 1958 versus 1737, a 12.7% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core adds an 8.9% win (294 versus 270), and passmark single-thread a 5.7% win (3834 versus 3626). Consistency across four different single-core engines indicates a genuine architectural improvement rather than a benchmark-specific quirk.

Geekbench multi-core favors the newer chip by 15.6% (11676 versus 10104), and passmark physics by 17.4% (1349 versus 1149), confirming the simulation advantage.

The 8840HS counters in exactly four tests. Its best result is passmark data encryption at 17650 versus 15244, a 13.6% win and the only head-to-head test it wins by double digits. It also takes random string sorting by 6.3% (35517 versus 33266) and integer math by 5.2% (90382 versus 85651). Its passmark multithread "win" of 24990 versus 24935 is a 0.2% margin, statistically indistinguishable from a draw. The remaining tests (data compression, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math) all go to the Ryzen AI 7 350 by margins between 1.2% and 4.7%, meaning even its small wins are near-universal.

Context from the database reinforces how close these two sit to the broader market: the Ryzen AI 7 350's average of 34222 is essentially identical to the AMD EPYC 4244P (34220, 0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (34260, -0.1%), the Intel Core i5-13450HX (34333, -0.3%), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (34083, 0.4%). The 8840HS's 33667 similarly matches the Ryzen 5 7645HX, Ryzen 9 3900XT, Ryzen 5 240, and Core Ultra 7 255H within 0.4%.

The Verdict

The data supports one clear recommendation: for rendering, content creation, simulation, and anything sensitive to single-thread speed, the Ryzen AI 7 350 is the stronger processor. It wins 13 of 17 tests, leads by more than 20% in multi-core rendering, and never loses a single-core comparison. Both chips share the same 28 W envelope, so the performance gap comes without a thermal penalty on paper.

The Ryzen 7 8840HS remains defensible in a narrow set of cases. If the workload is dominated by encryption, where it leads by 13.6%, or integer-bound sorting and integer math, its numbers are genuinely better. Its doubled 16 MB L3 cache and four additional PCIe Gen 4 lanes may also matter for platform designs that need them. For everything else the database records, the Zen 5 part is the pick, and its support for LPDDR5X gives system builders additional memory flexibility. For buyers weighing only the recorded benchmark data, the Ryzen AI 7 350 is the straightforward choice, with the 8840HS reserved for encryption-heavy or integer-heavy niches.