AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX are an unusual pairing: both are 16-core, 32-thread processors, and both sit in the 94th percentile of all CPUs in the database, yet they come from entirely different worlds. The 7940HX is a Zen 4 mobile part built on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the 5955WX is a Zen 3 workstation part built on 7 nm with a 280 W TDP and an eight-channel memory subsystem. Their average benchmark scores land close together at 69875 for the 7940HX and 67868 for the 5955WX, but the head-to-head record, 9 wins to 4 in favor of the mobile chip, tells a more nuanced story about where each one dominates.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The Ryzen 9 7940HX holds the higher average benchmark score, 69875 versus 67868, and wins 9 of 13 head-to-head tests. However, the 5955WX wins decisively in Cinebench R23 rendering, including a 69.4% lead in single-core that reflects the recorded data rather than a typical generational gap.

Q: Do they have the same core counts?

A: Yes. Both processors offer 16 cores and 32 threads, and both carry 64 MB of L3 cache. The differences lie in clock behavior, memory subsystems, and platform features, not in core counts.

Q: Which one has better single-thread performance?

A: It depends on the test. The 7940HX wins Passmark single-thread by 18.6% (3942 vs 3324) and scores 2001 in 3DMark 2-threads, while the 5955WX records 5906 in Cinebench R23 single-core against 1807 for the 7940HX, a 69.4% margin in the recorded data. Passmark and Cinebench results point in opposite directions here, so workload choice matters.

Q: Which has more memory bandwidth?

A: The 5955WX, by a wide margin: eight-channel DDR4 delivering 204.8 GB/s versus dual-channel DDR5 at 83.2 GB/s on the 7940HX.

Q: Which is newer?

A: The 7940HX was released on 2024-01-16, while the 5955WX launched on 2022-03-07, roughly a two-generation gap in AMD's product cadence.

Q: Do either support ECC memory?

A: Only the 5955WX, which is positioned as a Server/Workstation part. The 7940HX does not support ECC.

Architecture Differences

The generational split is the core of this comparison. The 7940HX uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Dragon Range codename, manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm node, packing 13,140 million transistors into a dual-die layout of 2x 71 mm². The 5955WX uses Zen 3 (Chagall PRO) on TSMC's 7 nm node, with 16,600 million transistors spread across 4x 81 mm² of silicon. The older chip actually carries more transistors across more die area, a consequence of its four-die design supporting a server-class platform.

Cache structure diverges below L3. Both share 64 KB of L1 per core and 64 MB of L3, but the 7940HX doubles per-core L2 to 1 MB versus 512 KB on the 5955WX, one of the tangible architectural benefits of the newer generation.

Clock behavior inverts expectations. The 7940HX has a low 2.40 GHz base with a 5.20 GHz boost, a wide range typical of a mobile design governed by a 55 W TDP. The 5955WX runs a tighter 4.00 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost under a 280 W TDP, sustaining higher baseline clocks because its workstation platform allows far greater power draw.

Platform-level differences are stark. The 5955WX offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes and eight-channel DDR4 with ECC, features suited to GPU-dense workstations and memory-hungry professional applications. The 7940HX provides 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, dual-channel DDR5, and integrated Radeon 610M graphics, the latter something the Threadripper lacks entirely. The mobile chip also has an unlocked multiplier; the Threadripper does not.

Where Each One Wins

The 7940HX wins the modern efficiency-and-response profile. It leads in Passmark single-thread by 18.6%, in Passmark multithread by 8.1%, in floating point math by 16.3%, in integer math by 9.6%, in extended instructions by 8.7%, and in string sorting by 17%. Its nearest rivals by average score are mainstream desktop flagships: the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (-0.2%), Intel Core i7-14700KF (-0.4%), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (0.5%), and Intel Core i7-14700K (0.7%). In other words, a 55 W mobile chip trades blows with high-end desktop silicon, which is its own statement about Zen 4's efficiency.

The 5955WX wins sustained, bandwidth-heavy, and physics-oriented workloads. It takes Cinebench R23 multi-core by 29.7% (41837 vs 29400), Passmark physics by 21.1% (2913 vs 2297), and data encryption by a modest 1.3%. Its rival set confirms its station: the AMD EPYC 4484PX (0.1%), Intel Xeon w5-3525 (0.3%), AMD EPYC 7352 (-0.4%), and AMD EPYC 9184X (-0.5%) are all server-class parts. For workloads that lean on the 204.8 GB/s memory subsystem, ECC reliability, or sheer PCIe connectivity, the Threadripper remains the correct tool despite its age.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Zen 4 (7940HX) vs Zen 3 (5955WX)
• Process node: 5 nm vs 7 nm, both TSMC
• Base/boost clocks: 2.40/5.20 GHz vs 4.00/4.50 GHz
• TDP: 55 W vs 280 W
• Socket: AMD Socket FL1 vs AMD Socket WRX8
• L2 cache: 1 MB per core vs 512 KB per core
• Memory: DDR5 dual-channel at 83.2 GB/s vs DDR4 eight-channel at 204.8 GB/s
• ECC: not supported vs supported
• PCIe: Gen 5 with 28 lanes vs Gen 4 with 128 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 610M vs none
• Market segment: Mobile vs Server/Workstation
• Transistors / die size: 13,140 million on 2x 71 mm² vs 16,600 million on 4x 81 mm²
• Multiplier: unlocked vs locked
• Release date: 2024-01-16 vs 2022-03-07

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 5955WX's headline win is rendering. In Cinebench R23 multi-core it posts 41837 against 29400 for the 7940HX, a 29.7% advantage driven by sustained all-core throughput at workstation power limits. The recorded Cinebench R23 single-core result is even more lopsided: 5906 versus 1807, a 69.4% delta in favor of the Threadripper, an outlier in the dataset given that the 7940HX leads every other lightly threaded comparison. Passmark physics also goes to the 5955WX at 2913 versus 2297, a 21.1% gap consistent with a heavy multi-core physics simulation, and data encryption edges its way at 42524 versus 41974, 1.3% apart.

The 7940HX's wins are broader. Passmark single-thread lands at 3942 versus 3324, an 18.6% lead, and the same margin repeats in the duplicate singlethread entry. Floating point math favors it 121383 to 104377 (16.3%), string sorting 81775 to 69879 (17%), integer math 202883 to 185168 (9.6%), prime number search 273 to 248 (10.1%), extended instructions 51029 to 46952 (8.7%), and the overall Passmark multithread score 53204 to 49220 (8.1%). Data compression is nearly a tie: 693741 versus 690994, a 0.4% edge to the mobile chip.

The synthesis is straightforward. The 7940HX is the stronger general-purpose performer per the aggregate data, winning 9 of 13 recorded tests and sitting within a fraction of a percent of desktop flagships like the Ryzen 9 7950X and Core i7-14700KF in average score, all at a 55 W TDP. The 5955WX is the specialist: it renders faster, simulates physics faster, and brings 204.8 GB/s of ECC memory bandwidth plus 128 PCIe lanes that no mobile platform can match. Choose the Threadripper for sustained content-creation throughput and platform expandability; choose the 7940HX for a modern, efficient all-rounder whose recorded results rival desktop silicon at a fraction of the power envelope.