AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS vs AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS are both 8-core, 16-thread mobile processors aimed at high-performance laptops, but they represent two distinct generations of AMD’s mobile lineup. The 6950HS is a 6000-series part built on the Zen 3+ architecture, while the 7940HS is a 7000-series chip based on Zen 4. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between the two, with the 7940HS winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons in the dataset. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels, answers common questions, and details the architectural and specification differences that drive their performance.

Where Each One Wins

The performance landscape here is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS wins every single benchmark in the comparison set. There are zero wins for the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS across the 17 head-to-head tests, which include Cinebench, Geekbench, and Passmark workloads. This means the 7940HS is the clear choice for any task that benefits from raw CPU throughput, whether that is single-threaded responsiveness or heavily multithreaded rendering and encoding workloads.

The 6950HS, while not winning any direct comparisons, still holds its own as a capable mobile processor. Its relevance lies in its position as an older, more established part. It shares the same core and thread count as the newer chip, and its 82nd percentile ranking among all CPUs matches the 7940HS exactly. For users who are not chasing the absolute maximum performance, the 6950HS remains a viable option, especially in systems where the platform or power delivery might be tuned differently. However, the data clearly shows that for pure performance, the 7940HS is the superior part. The 7940HS also benefits from a newer integrated graphics solution, the Radeon 780M, compared to the Radeon 680M in the 6950HS, which could be a differentiator for light gaming or media tasks without a discrete GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 16713 versus 11515 for the 6950HS, a delta of -31.1% in favor of the newer chip. Geekbench multi-core shows a similar trend, with the 7940HS scoring 12724 compared to 8756.

Q: Is there a big difference in single-core performance?

A: Yes, the 7940HS holds a comfortable lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1790 versus 1514 for the 6950HS, a 15.4% advantage. The single-core Geekbench score is 2144 for the 7940HS versus 1903 for the 6950HS, an 11.2% difference. Passmark single-thread scores are 3878 and 3400, respectively, a 12.3% gap.

Q: How do the two chips compare in terms of overall average benchmark score?

A: The average benchmark scores are remarkably close. The 6950HS has an average benchmark score of 31850, while the 7940HS has an average score of 31593. In the nearestRivals data, the 7940HS is listed as a rival to the 6950HS with a deltaPct of 0.8%, meaning the 6950HS is actually 0.8% higher on average. This is in contrast to the head-to-head wins, which are dominated by the 7940HS.

Q: What is the architectural generation difference between these two CPUs?

A: The Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS is based on the Zen 3+ architecture, codenamed Rembrandt, and is part of the 6000 series. The Ryzen 9 7940HS is based on the newer Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix, and belongs to the 7000 series. This generational leap is a primary driver of the performance differences.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Both support DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. However, the memory bandwidth differs. The 6950HS has a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the 7940HS offers a higher 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Are there any differences in the integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The 6950HS features the Radeon 680M integrated graphics, while the 7940HS is equipped with the more advanced Radeon 780M. This suggests a potential improvement in graphics performance for the newer chip, though no direct benchmarks are provided in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data paints a clear picture of the 7940HS’s dominance. The largest single gap is in the Passmark find prime numbers test, where the 7940HS scores 92 against the 6950HS’s 56, a delta of -39.1%. This indicates a massive advantage in integer-heavy, single-threaded tasks. Similarly, the Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows a 31.1% difference, with the 7940HS scoring 16713 versus 11515. This translates to a huge real-world advantage in rendering and video encoding workloads.

The Geekbench multi-core score also shows a 31.2% delta, with the 7940HS at 12724 and the 6950HS at 8756. This is a substantial lead that would be noticeable in almost any productivity application. The Passmark extended instructions test shows another 31.2% gap, with scores of 27480 and 18897, respectively. This indicates a significant advantage in workloads that leverage modern CPU instruction sets, such as cryptography or scientific computing.

While the multi-core gaps are large, the single-core differences are also notable. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 7940HS leads with a score of 283 versus 239, a 15.5% difference. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows a 15.4% gap, with scores of 1790 and 1514. Even in Passmark single-thread, the 7940HS’s 3878 score is 12.3% higher than the 6950HS’s 3400. These consistent single-thread wins mean that the 7940HS will feel snappier in everyday tasks like web browsing and application loading.

Other Passmark sub-tests reinforce the trend. In data compression, the 7940HS scores 365352 versus 282624, a 22.6% lead. Data encryption shows an 18.1% difference, with scores of 21777 and 17837. Floating point math is 23.5% higher for the 7940HS (62897 vs 48096), and integer math is 14.5% higher (103044 vs 88124). The multithread Passmark score is 30098 for the 7940HS versus 22775 for the 6950HS, a 24.3% difference. Even in random string sorting, a test that can be sensitive to memory and cache, the 7940HS wins by 30.8%, scoring 42386 versus 29350.

Specification Differences

The core specifications show both processors share a similar foundation, but key differences emerge. Both have 8 cores and 16 threads, a 35W TDP, and support for DDR5 memory. They also both use PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are different, however: the 6950HS uses AMD Socket FP7, while the 7940HS uses AMD Socket FP8, indicating they are not drop-in compatible.

The clock speeds are a major differentiator. The 6950HS has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The 7940HS is clocked higher, with a base of 4.00 GHz and a boost of 5.20 GHz. These higher clocks directly contribute to the performance lead of the 7940HS. The memory bandwidth also differs, with the 7940HS offering 89.6 GB/s compared to the 6950HS’s 76.8 GB/s.

Another key difference is ECC memory support. The 6950HS does not support ECC memory, while the 7940HS does, which could be important for users who require error-correcting memory for data integrity in specific workloads. The process node also differs, which is covered in more detail in the next section. The part numbers are also different, with the 6950HS listed as 100-000000541100-000000563 and the 7940HS having multiple part numbers including 100-000000954(FP7r2), 100-000000963(FP7), and 100-000001128(FP8).

Architecture Differences

The architectural differences are the root cause of the performance gap. The 6950HS is built on the Zen 3+ architecture, codenamed Rembrandt, and is manufactured on a 6 nm process node at TSMC. In contrast, the 7940HS uses the newer Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix, and is built on a more advanced 4 nm process node, also at TSMC. This process shrink allows for higher clock speeds and improved power efficiency, which is reflected in the benchmark results.

The cache hierarchy also differs. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The L2 cache, however, is doubled in the newer chip: the 6950HS has 512 KB per core, while the 7940HS has 1 MB per core. This larger L2 cache can significantly improve performance in workloads that have a working set that fits within it.

The 7940HS also has a more advanced integrated GPU, the Radeon 780M, compared to the Radeon 680M in the 6950HS. While not benchmarked here, this represents a generational improvement in integrated graphics capability. The die size is also slightly smaller on the newer chip, at 178 mm² versus 208 mm², and the 7940HS has a listed transistor count of 25,000 million, while the 6950HS does not have a listed transistor count. These architectural advancements—smaller process node, doubled L2 cache, and higher clocks—combine to make the Ryzen 9 7940HS the clearly superior processor in this comparison.