AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS vs Intel Core 7 251E Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS and the Intel Core 7 251E are both active processors aimed at different market segments, and the recorded data shows they diverge sharply in core configuration, process technology, and benchmark outcomes. The Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS is a mobile part built on a 4 nm process with 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 251E is a desktop processor on a 10 nm process with 24 cores and 32 threads. Despite the Intel part having triple the core count, the AMD chip holds a clear overall performance advantage in the database, with an average benchmark score of 39,603 compared to a recorded score of zero for the Intel chip, which has no benchmark entries. The following analysis draws only from the database records.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the difference in their boost clocks?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E boosts to 5.60 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS’s boost of 5.10 GHz.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core 7 251E uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS and the Intel Core 7 251E support ECC memory.

Q: What integrated graphics do they carry?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS has a Radeon 780M, and the Intel Core 7 251E has UHD Graphics 770.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS is in the 87th percentile, while the Intel Core 7 251E is in the 50th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and target different physical installments. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm TSMC process. It integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm Intel process, with a die size of 257 mm². The Intel part has no listed transistor count.

Core and cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD chip has 8 cores with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has 24 cores, with 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a much larger 36 MB of shared L3 cache. This gives the Intel part a larger total cache footprint, which can help with data-heavy workloads.

Memory support also differs. The AMD processor supports only DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the Intel processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also in dual-channel. Both have the same memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. PCIe connectivity is different: the AMD chip provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part thus offers a newer PCIe standard, but fewer lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. AMD uses the Radeon 780M, while Intel uses UHD Graphics 770. Both are integrated solutions, so they do not require a separate graphics card for basic display output.

The AMD processor is classified as a mobile part with a 28 W TDP and uses AMD Socket FP7. The Intel processor is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP and uses Intel Socket 1700. The release dates are also distinct: the AMD chip was released on April 15, 2024, while the Intel chip was released on January 12, 2025. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors. The Intel Core 7 251E has an empty benchmark list, with no recorded scores for any test. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS, however, has a full set of recorded scores across multiple suites. This means the comparison is limited to the AMD chip’s absolute results and its position relative to other processors in the database.

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS delivers a multi-core score of 14,784 in Cinebench R23 and 2,458 in Cinebench R15. Its single-core results are 1,724 in Cinebench R23 and 271.5 in Cinebench R15. In PassMark tests, the AMD chip shows 31,1199 for data compression, 18,838 for data encryption, 22,298 for extended instructions, 84 for find prime numbers, 55,739 for floating point math, 93,342 for integer math, 26,646 for multithread, 1,351 for physics, 37,922 for random string sorting, and 3,692 for single-thread performance. Its average benchmark score is 39,603.

Because the Intel Core 7 251E has no benchmark scores, there is no recorded head-to-head data to compare the two directly. The database shows no wins for either processor in a head-to-head comparison, with both columns at zero. The Intel chip’s average benchmark score is zero, which places it at the 50th percentile. The AMD chip sits at the 87th percentile, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of all CPUs in the database.

The nearest rivals to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS include the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450 with an average score of 39,485 (0.3% lower), the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D with 39,768 (0.4% higher), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS with 39,325 (0.7% lower), and the AMD EPYC 4245P with 39,215 (1% lower). These small deltas show the 8840HS sits in a tight performance cluster, but it holds a slight edge over three of the four listed rivals.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS has extensive benchmark results and a high percentile ranking, while the Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmarks and a lower percentile. For any workload where measured performance matters, the AMD chip is the only one with verifiable data. The Intel part’s 24 cores and 32 threads suggest potential for multi-threaded tasks, but without benchmark scores, that potential is unconfirmed in the database.

The AMD chip is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP, which points to efficient operation in laptops. The Intel chip is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP, indicating a higher power envelope for stationary systems. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which offers more flexibility in system builds, but the AMD part’s exclusive DDR5 support aligns with newer platforms.

The Intel Core 7 251E has a listed launch MSRP of $384. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS has no launch MSRP recorded. The Intel chip’s higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz versus 5.10 GHz on the AMD chip does not translate into recorded performance advantages, as no tests exist for the Intel part.

For users who need a processor with proven, documented performance, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS is the only choice based on the database. The Intel Core 7 251E offers a larger core count and newer PCIe Gen 5 support, but its lack of benchmark entries means its real-world performance cannot be assessed from these records.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 3.30 GHz for AMD and 2.10 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are 5.10 GHz for AMD and 5.60 GHz for Intel. TDPs are 28 W for AMD and 65 W for Intel.

The AMD chip uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel chip uses a 10 nm Intel process. The AMD die is 178 mm² with 25,000 million transistors; the Intel die is 257 mm² with no transistor count listed. Cache layouts differ: AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Intel has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3.

Memory support: AMD uses DDR5 only, while Intel uses both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe: AMD has Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel has Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Both support ECC memory.

Integrated graphics: AMD has Radeon 780M, Intel has UHD Graphics 770. Sockets: AMD uses Socket FP7, Intel uses Socket 1700. Market segments: AMD is mobile, Intel is desktop. Release dates: AMD on April 15, 2024, Intel on January 12, 2025.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS wins in every measured benchmark category because it is the only processor with recorded scores. Its 87th percentile ranking indicates strong performance across the board. The nearest rival data shows it leads the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450 by 0.3%, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS by 0.7%, and the AMD EPYC 4245P by 1%, while trailing the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D by 0.4%. These margins are small, but the 8840HS is competitive within its immediate performance class.

The Intel Core 7 251E wins in specifications that do not require benchmark validation. Its 24 cores and 32 threads are a clear specification advantage over the AMD’s 8 cores and 16 threads. Its 36 MB of L3 cache is more than double the AMD’s 16 MB. Its 5.60 GHz boost clock is higher than the AMD’s 5.10 GHz. Its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory gives builders more options. Its PCIe Gen 5 interface is a generation ahead of the AMD’s Gen 4. Its larger 257 mm² die and 10 nm process are older technology, but the raw core count is unmatched in this comparison.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Intel part’s specification sheet suggests it could handle more parallel tasks, but no data confirms this. For any workload with recorded performance, the AMD part is the proven winner. The Intel part’s 50th percentile ranking is based on its average score of zero, which reflects the absence of benchmarks rather than poor performance.

The AMD chip is suited for mobile systems where a 28 W TDP and compact footprint matter. The Intel chip is suited for desktop systems where a 65 W TDP and larger power budget are acceptable. The AMD chip’s 4 nm process and TSMC foundry indicate a more modern manufacturing approach. The Intel chip’s 10 nm process and Intel foundry are older, but the higher core count may compensate in specific scenarios.

The data does not include any head-to-head benchmark wins for either processor, so the “wins” columns are both zero. The practical takeaway is that the AMD processor has verifiable performance data, while the Intel processor does not. Any decision between the two should rely on the AMD’s recorded scores, as no comparable Intel scores exist in the database.