AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS vs Intel Xeon 6369P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6369P dominates this comparison, taking 13 of the 15 head-to-head benchmark matchups. The data shows a processor clearly oriented toward sustained compute throughput, with its largest margins coming in single-core and floating-point workloads. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS, by contrast, wins only two tests, both in specific data-handling routines, which points to a more specialized efficiency profile rather than broad performance superiority.

For single-threaded work, the Intel part is emphatically ahead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon 6369P scores 3638 against the Ryzen's 1724, a 111% advantage. That is more than double the score, an unusual gap between two 8-core, 16-thread parts. The Cinebench R15 single-core test tells a similar story: 366 versus 271.5, a 34.8% lead. PassMark single-thread also favors Intel at 4305 versus 3692, a 16.6% edge. If the workload is lightly threaded, such as legacy applications or per-core licensing scenarios, the Xeon 6369P is the clear choice.

Multi-core and heavily threaded workloads also favor Intel, though the margins vary. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the biggest absolute gap: 25774 versus 14784, a 74.3% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core is closer at 2598 versus 2458, only 5.7% ahead. PassMark multi-thread gives Intel a 13.8% win (30315 versus 26646). The physics test, which often scales with memory latency and core efficiency, shows a 48.6% Intel advantage (2008 versus 1351). For rendering, simulation, or any parallel compute task, the Xeon 6369P is the stronger performer.

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS wins in data encryption (18838 versus 17922, a 4.9% edge) and random string sorting (37922 versus 37237, a 1.8% edge). These are narrow victories, suggesting a slight advantage in memory-access patterns or cryptographic instruction handling, but they do not offset the broader Intel lead. The Ryzen also trails in integer math (93342 versus 101013, an 8.2% deficit), floating-point math (55739 versus 74151, a 33% deficit), and prime-number finding (84 versus 141, a 67.9% deficit). For general productivity or database-style loads, the Intel part wins outright.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 6369P uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It is a server/workstation part with a TDP of 95 watts, designed for Socket 1700. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS uses Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process. It is a mobile part with a TDP of just 28 watts, fitting AMD Socket FP7.

The process node difference is significant: 4 nm on the AMD side versus 10 nm on the Intel side. This explains the massive TDP disparity, 28 watts versus 95 watts, and the Ryzen's ability to fit in thin-and-light laptops. The AMD part integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the Intel die is larger at 257 mm², though the transistor count is not recorded in the database. The smaller, denser AMD chip is clearly more power-efficient per unit of silicon.

Cache layouts also differ. Intel allocates 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. AMD uses 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has more cache at every level, which contributes to its single-core and multi-core advantages. AMD's smaller cache is offset by higher memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus no recorded bandwidth figure for Intel. Both support DDR5, but Intel also supports DDR4, giving it flexibility for older platforms.

PCIe connectivity diverges: Intel offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The Intel lanes are newer and faster per lane, though fewer in count. AMD compensates with more total lanes, which may suit devices needing many peripherals. The Ryzen also includes integrated Radeon 780M graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated GPU. For headless server use that is irrelevant, but for a mobile workstation or thin client, the AMD's iGPU is a practical advantage.

Both parts support ECC memory, which is notable for a mobile chip. The Intel Xeon launched in February 2025 with a launch MSRP of $606. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS launched in April 2024 with no recorded launch MSRP. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is off the table for both.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 6369P boosts to 5.70 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS reaches 5.10 GHz. Both have the same 3.30 GHz base clock.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon 6369P scores 3638, which is 111% higher than the Ryzen's 1724. That is roughly double the performance in a single-core rendering workload.

Q: Does the AMD part have any benchmark wins?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS wins two tests: data encryption (18838 versus 17922, a 4.9% advantage) and random string sorting (37922 versus 37237, a 1.8% advantage).

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two CPUs?

A: The Intel Xeon 6369P has a 95-watt TDP, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS has a 28-watt TDP. The AMD part consumes less than one-third the power budget.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon 6369P supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS supports DDR5 exclusively.

Q: How does the Intel part's average benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon 6369P has an average benchmark score of 40327, which is statistically tied with the Intel Core i9-13905H (40313, 0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 270 (40246, 0.2% delta), and the Intel Xeon 6507P (40426, -0.2% delta). It sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon 6369P | AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS |

|-------|------------------|------------------------|

| Cores | 8 | 8 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket FP7 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 4 |

| Process node | 10 nm (Intel) | 4 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 25,000 million |

| Die size | 257 mm² | 178 mm² |

| L1 cache per core | 80 KB | 64 KB |

| L2 cache per core | 2 MB | 1 MB |

| L3 cache (shared) | 24 MB | 16 MB |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes | Gen 4, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | N/A | Radeon 780M |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-02-23 | 2024-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $606 | None recorded |

| Part number | SRPLQ | 100-000001353(FP7r2), 100-000001381(FP7) |

The table shows that core and thread counts are identical, as are base clocks. The differences lie in boost clock (0.60 GHz higher on Intel), TDP (67 watts higher on Intel), process node (6 nm smaller on AMD), cache sizes (larger on Intel), and platform features. The AMD part has more PCIe lanes but older Gen 4 technology, plus integrated graphics. The Intel part has a higher launch MSRP of $606 but offers more cache and faster clock speeds.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest Intel win is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Xeon 6369P scores 3638 versus the Ryzen's 1724, a 111% delta. That is the defining performance gap between these two chips. It means that for any application that relies on a single thread, the Intel part is roughly twice as fast. The second-largest margin is Cinebench R23 multi-core: 25774 versus 14784, a 74.3% lead. This confirms that the Intel advantage persists even when all threads are active.

PassMark find prime numbers shows a 67.9% Intel lead (141 versus 84), a test that stresses integer arithmetic and memory latency. PassMark physics follows at 48.6% (2008 versus 1351), reflecting the Intel part's superior memory subsystem and per-core throughput. Floating-point math shows a 33% Intel advantage (74151 versus 55739), which is relevant for scientific and engineering workloads. Cinebench R15 single-core gives Intel a 34.8% win (366 versus 271.5), consistent with the R23 single-core result.

PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread both record 4305 for Intel and 3692 for AMD, a 16.6% delta. PassMark multi-thread gives Intel 30315 versus 26646, a 13.8% win. Data compression favors Intel at 346632 versus 311199, an 11.4% edge. Integer math shows an 8.2% Intel lead (101013 versus 93342). Extended instructions are nearly tied, with Intel ahead by just 2.3% (22807 versus 22298).

The AMD wins are narrow but real. Data encryption shows the Ryzen at 18838 versus 17922, a 4.9% advantage. Random string sorting gives AMD 37922 versus 37237, a 1.8% edge. These two tests involve cryptographic operations and memory-intensive sorting routines, where the Zen 4 core's memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s may play a role. Still, the overall benchmark record is lopsided: 13 wins for Intel, 2 for AMD.

The average benchmark scores reflect the gap. Intel's avgBenchmarkScore is 40327, while AMD's is 39603, a difference of roughly 1.8%. Both sit at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, so neither is a slouch. But the Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431, -0.3% delta) and the Intel Xeon 6507P (40426, -0.2% delta), showing it trades blows with top-tier mainstream chips. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D (39768, -0.4% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS (39325, 0.7% delta), a lower absolute tier.

In practical terms, the Xeon 6369P is the faster processor in nearly every measured dimension, with particular strength in single-core and floating-point work. The Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS offers a much lower TDP, integrated graphics, and a smaller die, making it the better fit for mobile systems where power and space are constrained. The benchmark data does not show a scenario where the AMD part wins a mainstream compute test; its two victories are in narrow data-processing routines. For raw performance, the Intel Xeon 6369P is the clear winner. For efficiency and portability, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS has the architectural edge.