AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS vs AMD Ryzen 9 7940H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database pits the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H against the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS across 15 recorded tests. The results are overwhelmingly one-sided: the Ryzen 9 7940H wins 13 of 15 comparisons, with the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS taking only two. The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23, where the 7940H posts 3487 against 1724 for the 8840HS, a delta of 102.3%. That is more than double the score, and it shows up in every single-threaded workload. The Cinebench R15 single-core test tells a similar story: 351 versus 271.5, a 29.3% lead for the 7940H. PassMark single-thread agrees, with 3952 versus 3692, a 7% advantage.

Multi-core performance is also firmly in the 7940H's favor, though the margin varies by test. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 24703 versus 14784, a 67.1% difference. Cinebench R15 multicore is much closer: 2490 versus 2458, only 1.3% apart. The 7940H wins, but barely. PassMark multithread sits at 29063 versus 26646, a 9.1% lead. Integer math shows 101977 versus 93342, a 9.3% advantage, while floating point math posts 62057 versus 55739, an 11.3% edge. Data compression favors the 7940H by 13.1%, with scores of 352077 versus 311199. Encryption follows at 12%, with 21096 versus 18838. Extended instructions land at 26804 versus 22298, a 20.2% gap. Random string sorting sees 42093 versus 37922, an 11% difference.

The two wins for the 8840HS are narrow but consistent. PassMark find prime numbers shows 84 versus 81, a 3.6% advantage for the PRO chip. PassMark physics posts 1351 versus 1300, a 3.8% lead. Both are small margins, and neither signals a broader trend. Across the full suite, the average benchmark score for the 7940H is 40431, placing it at the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The 8840HS averages 39603, also at the 87th percentile. The delta between their averages is about 2.1%. The 7940H sits near the Intel Xeon 6507P, which scores 40426, and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H at 40518. The 8840HS sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450 at 39485 and the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D at 39768. Both chips occupy similar territory in the database, but the 7940H consistently pulls ahead in raw compute tests.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear pick for most workloads: the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H. It wins 13 of 15 head-to-head tests, and its biggest victories are in the tests that matter most for general productivity: Cinebench multi-core and single-core, integer math, floating point math, and data compression. The 67.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore is substantial, and the 102.3% lead in R23 single-core is decisive. Anyone running CPU-bound tasks, compiling code, rendering, or working with large datasets will see a measurable benefit from the 7940H.

The Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS is not without merit, but its wins are limited to two niche tests: prime number finding and physics simulation. The 3.6% and 3.8% margins are small, and they do not offset the losses elsewhere. The 8840HS does carry a lower TDP of 28 watts versus the 7940H's 35 watts, which matters for battery life and thermal management in thin laptops. If power draw is the priority, the PRO chip has an argument. The 7940H also uses the AMD Socket FP8, while the 8840HS uses AMD Socket FP7, so motherboard compatibility separates them.

For a builder choosing between these two, the benchmark results say the 7940H is the faster processor in almost every measurable way. The 8840HS is the choice only if the lower power envelope is non-negotiable, or if the specific socket and platform requirements of the system demand it. The database shows no scenario where the 8840HS wins by enough to justify a performance trade-off.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Zen 4 architecture, but they come from different families. The 7940H is part of the 7000 series, codenamed Phoenix. The 8840HS is part of the 8000 series, codenamed Hawk Point. Both are built on TSMC's 4 nm process, with the same transistor count of 25,000 million and the same die size of 178 mm². The underlying silicon is effectively identical in scale, which explains why the core counts and cache structures match exactly.

The 7940H is a Ryzen 9 part, while the 8840HS is a Ryzen 7 PRO. The PRO designation typically indicates additional enterprise features, but the database does not list any extra security or management capabilities for the PRO model. The integrated graphics are the same: Radeon 780M on both. Memory support matches as well, with DDR5, dual-channel bus, and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both. PCIe is Gen 4 with 20 lanes on both.

The clock speeds differ. The 7940H has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 8840HS has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. That 0.70 GHz base clock gap and 0.10 GHz boost gap explain much of the performance difference, especially in single-threaded tests. The 7940H also has a higher TDP of 35 watts, which allows it to sustain higher clocks under load. The 8840HS is capped at 28 watts, which keeps it cooler but limits sustained performance.

Specification Differences

The specifications that differ between the two are limited to a handful of fields. The 7940H is in the 7000 series, while the 8840HS is in the 8000 series. The codenames differ: Phoenix versus Hawk Point. The socket is different: AMD Socket FP8 for the 7940H, AMD Socket FP7 for the 8840HS. The base clock is 4.00 GHz versus 3.30 GHz. The boost clock is 5.20 GHz versus 5.10 GHz. The TDP is 35 watts versus 28 watts. The part numbers differ as well: the 7940H lists 100-000000954 (FP7r2), 100-000000963 (FP7), and 100-000001128 (FP8), while the 8840HS lists 100-000001353 (FP7r2) and 100-000001381 (FP7).

The release date for the 8840HS is recorded as 2024-04-15, while the 7940H has no recorded release date in the database. Both have the same cache layout: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Both use the same memory support, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, and process node. Neither is multiplier unlocked. Both are active production parts for the mobile market.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H wins every single-core test in the database. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3487 versus 1724, a 102.3% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 351 versus 271.5, a 29.3% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 3952 versus 3692, a 7% lead.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core performance?

A: The 7940H leads in Cinebench R23 multicore with 24703 versus 14784, a 67.1% advantage. Cinebench R15 multicore is closer, with 2490 versus 2458, a 1.3% lead. PassMark multithread shows 29063 versus 26646, a 9.1% lead.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins two tests. PassMark find prime numbers shows 84 versus 81, a 3.6% lead. PassMark physics shows 1351 versus 1300, a 3.8% lead. Both margins are narrow.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The 7940H has a TDP of 35 watts, while the 8840HS has a TDP of 28 watts. The 8840HS draws less power, which may benefit battery life and thermal management.

Q: Do they use the same socket?

A: No. The 7940H uses AMD Socket FP8, while the 8840HS uses AMD Socket FP7. The part numbers also differ, though the 7940H includes an FP7r2 variant.

Q: Are the integrated graphics the same?

A: Yes, both use the Radeon 780M. The memory support is also identical: DDR5, dual-channel, 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, with ECC support on both.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H is the clear winner for compute-heavy tasks. It dominates in Cinebench R23 multicore by 67.1%, which makes it the better pick for rendering, video encoding, and 3D simulation. The 102.3% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core means faster response in everyday applications, from web browsing to office suites. The 13.1% lead in data compression helps with file archiving and database workloads. The 12% lead in encryption accelerates VPN traffic and disk encryption. The 20.2% lead in extended instructions benefits AVX-512 workloads, if the software uses them. The 11.3% lead in floating point math helps scientific computing and physics simulations. The 9.3% lead in integer math improves general logic-heavy tasks. The 11% lead in random string sorting aids data processing and sorting algorithms. The 9.1% lead in multithread and the 7% lead in single-thread round out a comprehensive victory.

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS wins only in prime number finding and physics simulation, with margins of 3.6% and 3.8%. These are narrow victories and unlikely to sway a purchasing decision. The 8840HS does have a lower TDP of 28 watts, which makes it the better choice for systems where power draw and heat output are the primary constraints. For a thin-and-light laptop where sustained performance is secondary to battery life, the 8840HS has a role. For anything else, the 7940H is the faster part. The database places both at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, but within that tier, the 7940H is consistently ahead. The average benchmark score of 40431 versus 39603 confirms the gap. The 7940H is the pick for performance, the 8840HS for efficiency.