AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS vs AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS are two nearly identical mobile processors from the same 8000 series family, sharing the same Zen 4 architecture, Hawk Point codename, and 4 nm TSMC process node. The critical difference lies in their power envelopes and clock speeds, which translate into a consistent performance gap across every benchmark recorded. The data shows the 8845HS is the faster part in all 15 head-to-head tests, but the 8840HS holds its own as the more power-efficient option with a lower TDP.

FAQ

Q: What is the main difference between the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS and the 8845HS?

A: The primary distinction is the TDP and base clock. The 8840HS operates at a 28 W TDP with a 3.30 GHz base clock, while the 8845HS uses a 45 W TDP with a 3.80 GHz base clock. Both share the same 5.10 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 8840HS has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 39603 compared to the 8845HS’s 39325. This places the 8840HS in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the 8845HS sits in the 86th percentile.

Q: Is the 8845HS faster in multi-core workloads?

A: Yes, significantly. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 8845HS scores 24565 versus the 8840HS’s 14784, a 39.8% difference. The 8845HS also wins PassMark multi-thread with 28572 against 26646.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and expansion features?

A: Yes. Both support DDR5 memory with dual-channel buses and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory. They also share PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only) and the same Radeon 780M integrated graphics.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for these chips?

A: Both chips have 25,000 million transistors and a die size of 178 mm². They are manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both have the multiplier locked (multiplierUnlocked: false), meaning they are not intended for user overclocking.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture: Zen 4 with the Hawk Point codename, fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process. They share identical core configurations with 8 cores and 16 threads, and the cache hierarchy is exactly the same: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The die size is a matching 178 mm², and the transistor count is identical at 25,000 million. There is no 3D V-Cache on either part.

The memory subsystem is also identical, with support for DDR5, a dual-channel bus, and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, which is a notable feature for professional workloads. The integrated graphics are the same Radeon 780M, and the PCIe implementation is Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The socket is AMD Socket FP7 for both, and they share the same release date of 2024-04-15.

The architectural distinction is limited to power and clock behavior. The 8840HS has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a TDP of 28 W, while the 8845HS has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a TDP of 45 W. The boost clock is identical at 5.10 GHz. This means the 8845HS is essentially a higher-power, higher-base-clock version of the 8840HS, which explains its performance advantage in sustained workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clean sweep: the 8845HS wins all 15 recorded head-to-head tests. The most dramatic differences appear in Cinebench workloads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 8845HS scores 3468 against the 8840HS’s 1724, a 50.3% advantage. The multi-core R23 test shows a 39.8% lead for the 8845HS with 24565 versus 14784. Even in Cinebench R15, the 8845HS leads by 0.7% in multi-core (2476 vs 2458) and by 22.2% in single-core (349 vs 271.5).

PassMark results tell a similar story but with smaller margins. The 8845HS wins data compression with 343952 against 311199, a 9.5% lead. Data encryption shows an 8% advantage (20487 vs 18838), and extended instructions are 12.3% faster (25434 vs 22298). The gap narrows in floating-point math, where the 8845HS scores 58965 versus 55739, a 5.5% difference. Integer math is 4.4% ahead (97625 vs 93342), and multi-thread performance is 6.7% better (28572 vs 26646).

The smallest margins appear in single-threaded PassMark tests, where the 8845HS scores 3762 versus 3692, a 1.9% difference. Find prime numbers shows a 3.4% lead (87 vs 84), and physics is 2.7% ahead (1389 vs 1351). Random string sorting favors the 8845HS by 9.4% (41867 vs 37922). Across all tests, the 8845HS demonstrates a consistent, if variable, performance edge, with the largest wins in Cinebench and the smallest in PassMark single-thread workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors share almost every specification, with only three fields differing between them. The base clock is different: the 8840HS runs at 3.30 GHz, while the 8845HS runs at 3.80 GHz. The TDP also differs, with the 8840HS rated at 28 W and the 8845HS at 45 W. The part numbers are unique, with the 8840HS listed as 100-000001353 (FP7r2) and 100-000001381 (FP7), while the 8845HS uses 100-000001316 (FP7r2) and 100-000001387 (FP7).

All other specifications are identical: 8 cores, 16 threads, 5.10 GHz boost clock, AMD Socket FP7, Zen 4 architecture, Hawk Point codename, 4 nm process, TSMC foundry, 25,000 million transistors, 178 mm² die size, and the full cache layout. Memory support, PCIe lanes, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, release date, and locked multiplier are all the same. There is no launch MSRP listed for either part.

The average benchmark scores also differ slightly, with the 8840HS at 39603 and the 8845HS at 39325. This is notable because despite the 8845HS winning every head-to-head test, the 8840HS has a higher aggregate average score, likely due to the specific weighting of the benchmark suite. The percentile rankings reflect this: the 8840HS is in the 87th percentile, while the 8845HS is in the 86th.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS is the faster processor in every single benchmark recorded. If raw performance is the sole criterion, the 8845HS is the clear choice. It delivers a 50.3% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and a 39.8% lead in multi-core, which are massive margins for two chips with the same architecture and core count. Even in the closest test, PassMark single-thread, the 8845HS still wins by 1.9%.

However, the 8840HS is not without merit. It has a lower TDP of 28 W versus 45 W, which suggests better power efficiency for the same boost clock. Its average benchmark score is actually higher (39603 vs 39325), and it sits in a higher percentile (87 vs 86). This indicates that in some aggregate scoring metrics, the 8840HS can edge out the 8845HS, possibly due to thermal or power management behaviors in specific workloads.

For a mobile platform, the choice comes down to priorities. The 8845HS is the performance pick, with its higher base clock and TDP enabling sustained throughput. The 8840HS is the efficiency pick, offering nearly the same boost clock with a much lower power envelope. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a factor. Both are active production parts with identical release dates, so availability should not differentiate them.

Where Each One Wins

The 8845HS wins every head-to-head benchmark, so it is the default choice for performance-critical tasks. Its largest advantages are in Cinebench R23, where it is 50.3% faster in single-core and 39.8% faster in multi-core. This makes it the better option for rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with sustained multi-threaded performance. The 8845HS also leads in PassMark extended instructions by 12.3%, suggesting an edge in workloads that use advanced CPU instruction sets.

The 8840HS does not win any benchmark, but its strengths lie in efficiency and aggregate scoring. Its 28 W TDP makes it more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom and battery life are critical. The higher average benchmark score (39603) and better percentile ranking (87th vs 86th) suggest that in mixed or bursty workloads, the 8840HS can sometimes outperform the 8845HS on average, even if it loses every specific test. This could be due to better power management allowing the 8840HS to sustain boost clocks longer in certain scenarios.

For users who prioritize maximum processing power, the 8845HS is the only logical choice. For those who value efficiency and are willing to accept a small performance hit in exchange for lower power draw, the 8840HS is a reasonable alternative. The 8840HS also has a slight edge in the overall average score, which may matter in benchmark-driven comparisons. Ultimately, the 8845HS is the winner in raw performance, while the 8840HS is the winner in efficiency and aggregate scoring.