AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX vs AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS are both 8-core, 16-thread mobile processors, but they represent two very different generations of AMD's laptop silicon. The data shows a clear split: the newer 8945HS wins the vast majority of benchmark comparisons, while the older 5980HX holds a few notable single-application victories. This is not a simple generational sweep; it is a nuanced matchup where the newer architecture dominates most workloads but loses decisively in specific Cinebench tests. The benchmark results indicate that the 8945HS is the better all-rounder, but the 5980HX has niche strengths that matter for certain users.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward recommendation for most buyers: the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS is the superior processor for general and multi-threaded performance. It wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, including decisive margins in Geekbench multi-core (37.1% ahead), PassMark physics (38.6% ahead), and PassMark find prime numbers (42.4% ahead). Its average benchmark score of 31,074 places it alongside the Intel Core i7-12700F in the nearestRivals data, with a deltaPct of 0. The 8945HS also posts a higher single-thread PassMark score (3,850 vs. 3,326), indicating better responsiveness in lightly-threaded tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX is the pick only for a specific scenario: users who rely heavily on Cinebench R23. It wins that test by 18.2% in multi-core (19,850 vs. 16,795) and by a massive 55.2% in single-core (2,802 vs. 1,805). It also edges out the 8945HS in Cinebench R15 single-core by 0.4%. Outside of those benchmarks, the 5980HX trails significantly. Its average benchmark score of 31,495 is nearly identical to the 8945HS (a difference of about 1.3%), but that parity is misleading given the wide variance in individual test results.

For a laptop buyer, the 8945HS is the safer choice. It delivers better performance across a broader range of applications, from integer math (11.3% ahead) to data compression (12.9% ahead) and encryption (9.9% ahead). The 5980HX is a specialized tool for Cinebench-centric workflows, but even then, the 8945HS's weaknesses there are an anomaly rather than a trend.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 9 8945HS dominates in nearly every category except one. Its wins include:

• Geekbench multi-core: 12,276 vs. 7,723 (37.1% ahead)
• PassMark multithread: 29,780 vs. 23,356 (21.6% ahead)
• PassMark integer math: 101,226 vs. 89,772 (11.3% ahead)
• PassMark floating point math: 61,821 vs. 50,223 (18.8% ahead)
• PassMark data compression: 356,508 vs. 310,694 (12.9% ahead)
• PassMark data encryption: 21,323 vs. 19,221 (9.9% ahead)
• 3DMark max threads: 7,775 (a test the 5980HX does not have data for)

These results indicate a processor that scales well with multi-threaded workloads and handles both integer and floating-point operations with greater efficiency. The 8945HS also wins in single-threaded PassMark (3,850 vs. 3,326, 13.6% ahead) and Geekbench single-core (2,116 vs. 1,930, 8.8% ahead), showing that its advantage is not limited to core-count scaling.

The Ryzen 9 5980HX wins exactly three head-to-head tests, all in Cinebench:

• Cinebench R23 multi-core: 19,850 vs. 16,795 (18.2% ahead)
• Cinebench R23 single-core: 2,802 vs. 1,805 (55.2% ahead)
• Cinebench R15 single-core: 282 vs. 281 (0.4% ahead)

This is a peculiar pattern. The 5980HX's Cinebench R23 single-core score is dramatically higher than its rival's, yet its Geekbench single-core score is 8.8% lower. This suggests the 5980HX has an optimization or boost behavior that favors the specific Cinebench workload, but it does not translate to broader single-threaded performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The Ryzen 9 5980HX is built on Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Cezanne, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. It packs 10,700 million transistors on a 180 mm² die. The Ryzen 9 8945HS uses Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Hawk Point, on a 4 nm process, with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The newer process node allows for a significantly higher transistor count in a similar die area, which is a key driver of the 8945HS's performance advantages.

Cache configurations differ notably. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 16 MB of shared L3 cache, but the 8945HS doubles the L2 cache to 1 MB per core (versus 512 KB per core on the 5980HX). This larger L2 cache likely contributes to the 8945HS's wins in data-heavy tasks like compression and encryption.

Memory support is another generational leap. The 5980HX uses DDR4 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The 8945HS moves to DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. This 31% increase in memory bandwidth helps explain the 8945HS's superiority in memory-sensitive benchmarks.

The 8945HS also features a newer PCIe Gen 4 interface with 20 lanes (CPU only), compared to the 5980HX's PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the 5980HX has Radeon Vega 8, while the 8945HS has a newer Radeon 780M. The 8945HS is not multiplier unlocked, whereas the 5980HX is. Both are mobile processors with a 45 W TDP, but they use different sockets: AMD Socket FP6 for the 5980HX and AMD Socket FP8 for the 8945HS. The 8945HS also has a higher base clock (4.00 GHz vs. 3.30 GHz) and boost clock (5.20 GHz vs. 4.80 GHz).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock, and does it matter?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, compared to 4.80 GHz on the 5980HX. This higher clock speed helps the 8945HS in single-threaded PassMark (3,850 vs. 3,326, 13.6% ahead) and Geekbench single-core (2,116 vs. 1,930, 8.8% ahead).

Q: Why does the 5980HX win Cinebench R23 but lose Geekbench?

A: The 5980HX wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 55.2% and multi-core by 18.2%, yet it loses Geekbench single-core by 8.8% and multi-core by 37.1%. This indicates that the 5980HX's performance is highly workload-specific, favoring Cinebench's rendering engine over Geekbench's broader test suite.

Q: Does the newer 4 nm process give the 8945HS an advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The 8945HS supports DDR5 with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the 5980HX uses DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s. This 21.3 GB/s gap likely contributes to the 8945HS's wins in data compression (12.9%) and encryption (9.9%).

Q: Are both processors 8-core and 16-thread?

A: Yes, both have 8 cores and 16 threads. They also share the same 45 W TDP and 16 MB of shared L3 cache, making their core configurations identical on paper.

Q: Which processor has more L2 cache?

A: The 8945HS has 1 MB of L2 cache per core, double the 512 KB per core on the 5980HX. This larger cache helps the 8945HS in integer math (11.3% ahead) and floating-point operations (18.8% ahead).

Q: What is the biggest single performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 5980HX scores 2,802 versus 1,805 for the 8945HS, a 55.2% difference. The next largest is in Geekbench multi-core, where the 8945HS leads by 37.1%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a lopsided contest, but the margins are instructive. Starting with the 8945HS's wins, the most significant is Geekbench multi-core, where it scores 12,276 against the 5980HX's 7,723 — a 37.1% lead. This is a massive difference for two 8-core processors and suggests that the 8945HS's Zen 4 architecture is far more efficient at scaling multi-threaded workloads. In PassMark find prime numbers, the 8945HS scores 92 versus 53, a 42.4% advantage, indicating superior integer throughput in algorithmic tasks. The PassMark physics test shows a 38.6% lead (1,434 vs. 881), and PassMark random string sorting is 25.4% ahead (43,202 vs. 32,238). Even in single-threaded performance, the 8945HS wins PassMark single-thread by 13.6% (3,850 vs. 3,326) and Geekbench single-core by 8.8% (2,116 vs. 1,930).

The 8945HS also wins in PassMark extended instructions by 21.3% (26,964 vs. 21,209), PassMark floating point math by 18.8% (61,821 vs. 50,223), and PassMark multithread by 21.6% (29,780 vs. 23,356). Its wins in integer math (11.3%), data compression (12.9%), and encryption (9.9%) round out a comprehensive sweep of the PassMark suite.

On the other side, the 5980HX's wins are concentrated in Cinebench. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,802 is a staggering 55.2% higher than the 8945HS's 1,805 — the largest margin of any test. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19,850 is 18.2% higher than 16,795. It also edges out the 8945HS in Cinebench R15 single-core by 0.4% (282 vs. 281). However, in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 8945HS wins by 24.2% (2,640 vs. 2,000), meaning the 5980HX's Cinebench advantage is confined to the R23 version. This inconsistency suggests the 5980HX has specific boost or thermal behavior that favors R23's workload, but it does not extend to other rendering tests or general productivity. The data shows that for anyone using Cinebench R23 as their primary benchmark, the 5980HX is the clear choice. For everyone else, the 8945HS is the better processor.