AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX vs AMD Ryzen 7 9700F Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX and AMD Ryzen 7 9700F are both 94th-percentile CPUs by average benchmark score, yet they approach performance from opposite directions. The 8840HX, a mobile Dragon Range part, leverages 12 cores and 24 threads to dominate multi-threaded workloads, winning 9 of 11 head-to-head tests. The 9700F, a desktop Granite Ridge chip, counters with a decisive single-thread advantage, winning the remaining 2 tests. The data reveals a clear split: the 8840HX is the throughput king, while the 9700F excels in latency-sensitive tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The 8840HX is the unequivocal winner in heavily parallelized workloads. Its lead in the head-to-head tests is substantial, ranging from a modest 3% in physics to a massive 66.1% in find prime numbers. This pattern is consistent across integer math, floating-point math, and data compression, where it leads by 21.3%, 11.3%, and 17.6%, respectively. The PassMark multithread score of 41,732 for the 8840HX versus 36,470 for the 9700F confirms this, representing a 14.4% advantage. For tasks that can use all available cores—rendering, video encoding, data processing—the 8840HX’s additional 4 cores and 8 threads provide a tangible performance buffer.

The 9700F’s wins are narrow in count but significant in nature. It wins both single-thread tests (PassMark single_thread and singlethread, both scored at 4,691) by a margin of 15.6% over the 8840HX’s 3,958. This is the largest single delta in either direction. This advantage stems from its higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz and newer Zen 5 architecture. Consequently, the 9700F is the better choice for workloads that hinge on low latency and high frequency, such as gaming, certain scientific simulations, and lightly threaded applications. Its performance in physics (2,122) is nearly identical to the 8840HX (2,185), suggesting that even in some mixed workloads, the gap narrows considerably.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different architectural generations and physical designs. The 8840HX uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, codenamed Dragon Range. It is a dual-chiplet design, with a die size of 2x 71 mm² and a total of 13,140 million transistors. The 9700F uses the newer Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, codenamed Granite Ridge. It is a single-chiplet design with a die size of 70.6 mm² and 8,315 million transistors. The 9700F’s smaller process node and monolithic die allow for higher clock speeds, but the 8840HX’s larger transistor count and dual-die layout provide more physical cores.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The 8840HX allocates 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a substantial 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9700F has a larger 80 KB L1 per core, but the same 1 MB of L2 per core, and only 32 MB of shared L3. The 8840HX’s double L3 capacity likely contributes to its strong performance in data compression and sorting tasks, where large working sets fit into the faster cache. The 9700F’s larger L1 cache helps feed its high-frequency cores.

Platform support diverges significantly. The 8840HX uses AMD Socket FL1, a mobile socket, while the 9700F uses the desktop AMD Socket AM5. Both support dual-channel DDR5 memory, but the 9700F has a slightly higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the 8840HX. The 8840HX offers 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), whereas the 9700F offers 24. The 8840HX includes a Radeon 610M integrated GPU, while the 9700F has no integrated graphics at all. The 9700F supports ECC memory; the 8840HX does not. Both have unlocked multipliers, but they are aimed at different segments: the 8840HX is a 55 W mobile part, and the 9700F is a 65 W desktop part.

The Verdict

The data prescribes a clear choice based on workload type. For users running heavily multi-threaded applications, the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX is the stronger processor. Its wins in 9 of 11 benchmarks, including a 14.4% lead in multithread and a 66.1% lead in find prime numbers, demonstrate that its 12-core/24-thread configuration provides a decisive advantage in parallel throughput. This is the processor for content creation, data analysis, and any workload that scales with core count. Its 94th-percentile ranking and average score of 71,797 place it slightly ahead of the 9700F’s 69,996.

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is the better choice for single-threaded and latency-sensitive tasks. Its 15.6% lead in the single-thread tests is the most significant performance gap in the entire comparison. With a higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz and the newer Zen 5 architecture, it offers superior responsiveness in applications that rely on a single core or lightly threaded workloads. Its average score of 69,996 still places it in the 94th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, from which it is within 0.7%. The 9700F’s lack of integrated graphics is a caveat for system builders without a discrete GPU, but its desktop platform and ECC memory support make it suitable for workstation use.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX is faster. It wins the PassMark multithread test with a score of 41,732, which is 14.4% higher than the 9700F’s 36,470. It also leads in integer math (146,506 vs. 120,788) and floating-point math (86,747 vs. 77,955).

Q: Which CPU has a higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F has significantly higher single-thread performance. It scores 4,691 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 15.6% higher than the 8840HX’s 3,958.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX has 12 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do these CPUs support DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F support dual-channel DDR5 memory. The 9700F has a slightly higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s compared to 83.2 GB/s for the 8840HX.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX includes a Radeon 610M integrated GPU. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: What is the difference in process node technology?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX is manufactured on a 5 nm TSMC process. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is manufactured on a newer 4 nm TSMC process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 8840HX’s dominance is most pronounced in the find prime numbers test, where it scores 304 versus 183 for the 9700F, a 66.1% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to core count and memory latency, and the 8840HX’s 12 cores and larger 64 MB L3 cache provide a clear edge. The data encryption test shows a 39.2% lead for the 8840HX (29,919 vs. 21,488), indicating strong performance in cryptographic workloads that can be parallelized. Random string sorting also favors the 8840HX significantly, with a 26.3% delta (57,971 vs. 45,890), likely benefiting from its larger cache. Integer math shows a 21.3% lead (146,506 vs. 120,788), and data compression a 17.6% lead (496,427 vs. 421,988). Even in floating-point math, the 8840HX leads by 11.3% (86,747 vs. 77,955), and in extended instructions by 8.4% (36,527 vs. 33,688). The multithread score differential is 14.4% (41,732 vs. 36,470), consolidating its overall throughput advantage. The physics test is the closest, with the 8840HX winning by just 3% (2,185 vs. 2,122).

The 9700F’s wins are concentrated in the two single-thread tests, which are identical in score (4,691) and delta (-15.6%). This 733-point gap in absolute terms is the largest single-test difference in the comparison. The 9700F’s 5.50 GHz boost clock and Zen 5 architecture are the primary drivers of this result. While this single-thread victory does not offset the 8840HX’s nine wins, it defines the 9700F’s role as a high-frequency specialist. The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split: the 8840HX averages 71,797, while the 9700F averages 69,996, a difference of roughly 2.6%. The 8840HX sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF, while the 9700F is within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-14700KF, showing both are competitive within their respective performance envelopes.