AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX vs AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is the clear performance leader in this comparison, winning 9 of the 11 head-to-head benchmark contests. The data shows a dominant multi-threaded performer: it delivers a 105.5% higher PassMark multithread score than the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164, and its Cinebench R23 multicore result of 29400 dwarfs any comparable output from the P164. The 7940HX is the choice for workloads that scale with core count, heavy integer and floating-point math, and data compression tasks.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins exactly two tests, both single-threaded. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4029 beats the 7940HX's 3942 by 2.2%. That is a narrow margin, but it is consistent across both single-thread entries in the database. The P164 also holds a lower 28 W TDP against the 7940HX's 55 W, making it the more power-conscious option for embedded or thermally constrained designs.

The database places the 7940HX at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 69875. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (69996, -0.2%) and Intel Core i7-14700KF (70163, -0.4%), meaning the 7940HX sits in a narrow performance band around those desktop parts. The P164 sits at the 91st percentile with an average score of 52901, and its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F (52873, +0.1%). The gap between the two processors' average scores is substantial: 69875 versus 52901, a difference of roughly 32%.

For buyers, the verdict is simple. The 7940HX is for users who need maximum throughput in multi-threaded tasks, and it is unlocked (multiplierUnlocked: true), allowing overclocking. The P164 is for embedded applications that prioritize efficiency, ECC memory support, and a newer Zen 5 architecture, while accepting a large multi-threaded deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The 7940HX wins in every heavy computational category. PassMark integer math shows 202883 versus 87940, a 130.7% advantage. Floating-point math follows the same pattern: 121383 versus 55799, a 117.5% lead. Data compression favors the 7940HX at 693741 versus 327891, a 111.6% delta. The largest single margin comes in prime number finding, where the 7940HX scores 273 against 71, a 284.5% lead. Data encryption also heavily favors the 7940HX: 41974 versus 16055, a 161.4% advantage.

The P164's only victories are in PassMark single-thread and the duplicate singlethread entry, both at 4029 versus 3942. That 2.2% lead is small but real. In physics simulation, the 7940HX scores 2297 versus 1210, an 89.8% advantage, so the P164 does not offset its single-thread win with any meaningful showing elsewhere. The 7940HX also leads in random string sorting (81775 versus 34801, +135%) and extended instructions (51029 versus 24193, +110.9%).

The use-case split is stark. The 7940HX is for rendering, compiling, encoding, simulation, and any parallel workload. The P164 is for single-threaded responsiveness in an embedded context, where its lower TDP and ECC support matter more than raw throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The 7940HX uses Zen 4 under the Dragon Range codename, built on a 5 nm TSMC process. The P164 uses a Zen 5 / Zen 5c hybrid configuration under the Gorgon Point codename, built on a 4 nm TSMC process. The process node advantage belongs to the P164, but the 7940HX compensates with a much larger core count.

Core counts diverge sharply. The 7940HX has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The 7940HX also has a 64 MB L3 cache, versus 8 MB on the P164. Per-core L1 cache favors the P164 at 80 KB per core, whereas the 7940HX has 64 KB per core. Both have 1 MB L2 per core.

The 7940HX uses AMD Socket FL1, while the P164 uses AMD Socket FP8. The 7940HX is a 55 W part; the P164 is a 28 W part. The 7940HX has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The P164 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost of 5.00 GHz. Despite the lower core count and lower clocks, the P164's single-thread score is slightly higher, which the database attributes to its newer Zen 5 architecture.

The 7940HX supports PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), while the P164 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The P164 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, whereas the 7940HX supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth favors the P164 at 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the 7940HX. The P164 supports ECC memory; the 7940HX does not. Integrated graphics also differ: the 7940HX has a Radeon 610M, while the P164 has a Radeon 880M.

The transistor counts differ in availability. The 7940HX lists 13,140 million transistors on a dual-die design of 2x 71 mm². The P164 lists a 233 mm² die with no transistor figure in the database. The 7940HX is an unlocked part; the P164 is locked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has an average benchmark score of 69875, compared to 52901 for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164. The 7940HX sits at the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the P164 sits at the 91st.

Q: Does the P164 win any benchmark against the 7940HX?

A: Yes. The P164 wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4029, against 3942 for the 7940HX, a 2.2% advantage. It also wins the duplicate singlethread entry by the same margin.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the 7940HX scores 273 against 71, a 284.5% advantage. Data encryption is the second largest at 161.4% (41974 versus 16055).

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The 7940HX has 16 cores and 32 threads. The P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do their TDPs compare?

A: The 7940HX has a 55 W TDP. The P164 has a 28 W TDP. The P164 is the lower-power part by 27 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results in the database are one-sided. The 7940HX wins 9 of 11 tests, and the margins are large in most cases.

PassMark multithread: 53204 versus 25889, a 105.5% lead for the 7940HX. This is the broadest measure of parallel performance, and it aligns with the 16-core versus 8-core split.

PassMark integer math: 202883 versus 87940, a 130.7% lead. Integer throughput is fundamental to general-purpose computing, and the 7940HX nearly doubles the P164.

PassMark floating-point math: 121383 versus 55799, a 117.5% lead. Scientific and engineering workloads that rely on FP math will strongly favor the 7940HX.

PassMark data compression: 693741 versus 327891, a 111.6% lead. Compression workloads benefit from both core count and cache, and the 7940HX's 64 MB L3 cache contributes here.

PassMark data encryption: 41974 versus 16055, a 161.4% lead. The 7940HX is more than 2.5 times faster in encryption throughput.

PassMark extended instructions: 51029 versus 24193, a 110.9% lead. AVX-style workloads show a similar pattern to the other math tests.

PassMark random string sorting: 81775 versus 34801, a 135% lead. Memory-bound sorting favors the 7940HX despite the P164's slightly higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s.

PassMark physics: 2297 versus 1210, an 89.8% lead. Physics simulation is heavily multi-threaded, and the 7940HX's core advantage shows.

PassMark find prime numbers: 273 versus 71, a 284.5% lead. This is the most lopsided result in the comparison.

The only wins for the P164 come in PassMark single-thread: 4029 versus 3942, a 2.2% margin, repeated in the singlethread entry. The P164's newer Zen 5 architecture gives it a slight single-core edge, but it does not translate into any multi-threaded victory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every major specification field.

• Cores: 16 (7940HX) versus 8 (P164)
• Threads: 32 versus 16
• Base clock: 2.40 GHz versus 2.00 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz
• TDP: 55 W versus 28 W
• Socket: AMD Socket FL1 versus AMD Socket FP8
• Architecture: Zen 4 versus Zen 5 / Zen 5c
• Codename: Dragon Range versus Gorgon Point
• Process node: 5 nm versus 4 nm
• Foundry: TSMC for both
• Die size: 2x 71 mm² versus 233 mm²
• Transistors: 13,140 million (7940HX); not listed for P164
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core versus 80 KB per core
• L2 cache: 1 MB per core for both
• L3 cache: 64 MB versus 8 MB
• Memory support: DDR5 versus DDR5, LPDDR5X
• Memory bus: Dual-channel for both
• Memory bandwidth: 83.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s
• ECC memory: false versus true
• PCIe: Gen 5, 28 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 4, 16 lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 610M versus Radeon 880M
• Market segment: Mobile for both
• Production status: Active for both
• Release date: 2024-01-16 versus 2026-03-08
• Multiplier unlocked: true versus false
• Part number: 100-000001486 for the 7940HX; unknown for the P164

The 7940HX is an older, higher-power, higher-core-count part. The P164 is a newer, lower-power, lower-core-count part with a more advanced process node, higher memory bandwidth, ECC support, and a more capable integrated GPU. The benchmark data shows that the 7940HX wins overwhelmingly in computational throughput, while the P164 offers a minor single-thread advantage and substantial efficiency and platform feature differences.