SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 7940H + AMD Radeon 760M

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

Build Configuration

Select your components

PROCESSOR (CPU)

▼

GRAPHICS CARD (GPU)

▼

88 Score

Top 12% Ranking

88 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 12% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

92%

GPU

83%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 9 7940H

40,431 Benchmark Score

Top 8% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

AMD Radeon 760M

6,019 Benchmark Score

Top 17% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

Market Position

How your build compares to others

Budget

0-30

Mid-Range

30-60

High-End

60-85

Enthusiast

85-100

Your Build

Game Performance Benchmarks

Real-world 4K FPS in popular titles

View All Games →

Performance Insights

Tips to maximize your system

Strong Performance

Excellent for 1440p gaming. Most games will run at high/ultra settings smoothly.

Compatible Games See what you can play Compare CPUs Find upgrades Compare GPUs Find upgrades

Performance Tiers Explained

90-100

Ultimate

4K Ultra gaming, VR ready, ray tracing enabled, professional workloads

4K 60+ FPS VR Ready

70-89

High-End

1440p Ultra or 4K High settings, excellent for modern AAA titles

1440p Ultra 4K High

50-69

Mid-Range

1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, great value for most gamers

1080p Ultra 1440p Med

30-49

Entry Level

1080p Medium settings, suitable for eSports and older titles

1080p Med eSports

0-29

Legacy

Basic gaming, older titles, consider upgrading for modern games

720p-1080p Low Older Games

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H paired with the AMD Radeon 760M is a laptop-class integrated solution, and the benchmark data paints a picture of a system where the CPU is the dominant performer while the GPU serves as a capable but secondary component. With the CPU sitting at the 87th percentile of all processors and the GPU at the 35th percentile, this is a configuration built for productivity and compute-heavy tasks rather than raw graphical dominance. The combined percentile of 61 reflects this split personality, and the absence of any measured FPS data for this exact pairing means all gaming analysis must be framed as estimated expectations derived from the synthetic benchmark scores.

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. It operates with a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, which translates to a pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s. The GPU’s memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM; instead, it draws from the system’s DDR5 memory pool with bandwidth that is described as system dependent. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, and the GPU consumes a modest 15 W TDP, making it an energy-efficient component suitable for thin-and-light laptops.

In terms of raw compute, the Radeon 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and an identical 5.323 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The GPU contains 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. For ray tracing, it includes 8 dedicated RT cores, which is notable for an integrated solution, though the absence of tensor cores means AI-accelerated workloads are not a focus. The API support is comprehensive, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which ensures compatibility with modern graphics standards.

Benchmark results for the Radeon 760M show an average score of 6019, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 400, while Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 20255 and 30336 respectively. Passmark results are more granular: G3D scores 5310, G2D scores 890, and GPU compute scores 2840. The DirectX tests show scores of 19 for DX10, 52 for DX11, 25 for DX12, and 65 for DX9, which are low absolute numbers but typical for integrated graphics. The nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6400 with an average score of 6001 and a delta of 0.3%, meaning the 760M is essentially on par with that discrete entry-level card. It also trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, +0.3%) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, -0.5%), while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996 (+0.4%), a curious inclusion given its server-class designation.

For rendering workloads, the data suggests the Radeon 760M is suited for light to moderate tasks. The 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is adequate for basic 3D rendering in applications that rely on shader compute, but the 16 ROPs limit pixel throughput for high-resolution output. The 8 RT cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing capability, but the low overall compute and memory bandwidth constraints mean ray-traced scenes would likely struggle at higher settings. The 35th percentile ranking indicates that this GPU sits below the median, making it a reasonable choice for 1080p gaming at medium settings or for productivity applications that leverage GPU acceleration, but not for demanding 1440p or 4K workloads.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

High-refresh gaming: The Radeon 760M’s 35th percentile ranking and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 400 indicate that high-refresh gaming at 144Hz or above is not realistic for modern titles. The GPU’s 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance could manage esports titles at 1080p with low settings, but the 16 ROPs and system-shared memory bandwidth would bottleneck frame rates, making 60 FPS the practical ceiling for most games.

Streaming: The CPU’s 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24703, provide ample headroom for software-based encoding while gaming. The GPU lacks dedicated tensor cores or NVENC-equivalent hardware, so streaming would rely on the CPU’s x264 encoder. The Passmark data compression score of 352077 and integer math score of 101977 suggest the CPU can handle the encoding load without significant frame drops, though the GPU’s gaming performance would still be the limiting factor for game quality.

Video editing: The CPU’s Passmark multi-thread score of 29063 and Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 10375 indicate strong performance for timeline scrubbing, effects processing, and export tasks. The GPU’s 20255 Geekbench OpenCL score supports hardware acceleration in editing software like Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve, but the 35th percentile GPU ranking means complex effects or 4K timeline previews might stutter. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth helps with large media files, but the system-shared GPU memory could cause contention under heavy load.

3D rendering: The CPU is the star here, with a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2490 and R23 multi-core score of 24703, making it well-suited for CPU-based rendering in Blender or V-Ray. The GPU’s 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 8 RT cores offer some acceleration for GPU rendering, but the 35th percentile ranking means it would be significantly slower than discrete options. The Passmark floating point math score of 62057 further confirms the CPU’s rendering prowess.

Software development: The CPU’s Passmark single-thread score of 3952 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3487 indicate fast compilation times and responsive IDE performance. The 8 cores and 16 threads handle parallel builds efficiently, as shown by the Passmark integer math score of 101977. The GPU’s Vulkan score of 30336 supports GPU-accelerated compute in development tools, though the lack of tensor cores limits AI/ML experimentation.

Student and office work: This configuration excels in everyday tasks. The CPU’s 87th percentile ranking ensures snappy multitasking, while the GPU’s 890 Passmark G2D score handles 2D desktop rendering without issue. The 35 W CPU TDP and 15 W GPU TDP contribute to long battery life, and the DDR5 memory support with ECC capability adds reliability for document processing and spreadsheet work.

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H is an 8-core, 16-thread mobile processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix, and manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, with a 35 W TDP that makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops while still delivering desktop-class performance. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it includes ECC memory support for added data integrity. The PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, and the integrated graphics is the Radeon 780M, which is a step above the discrete Radeon 760M in this build. The cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache.

The CPU’s benchmark scores are uniformly strong. In Cinebench, it scores 2490 in R15 multi-core, 351 in R15 single-core, 10375 in R20 multi-core, 1464 in R20 single-core, 24703 in R23 multi-core, and 3487 in R23 single-core. These numbers place it at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40431. The Passmark suite shows a multi-thread score of 29063, a single-thread score of 3952, integer math at 101977, floating point math at 62057, data compression at 352077, data encryption at 21096, extended instructions at 26804, and physics at 1300. The prime numbers test scores 81, and random string sorting scores 42093.

Nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6507P with an average score of 40426 and 0% delta, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H at 40518 with a -0.2% delta, the Intel Xeon 6369P at 40327 with a 0.3% delta, and the Intel Core i9-13905H at 40313 with a 0.3% delta. These comparisons show the Ryzen 9 7940H is essentially tied with these high-end processors, with differences of less than half a percent. This indicates that the 7940H is a top-tier mobile CPU that competes with desktop-class Xeon parts and the best laptop chips from Intel.

For real workloads, the data implies that the 7940H can handle heavily threaded tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific computing with ease. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24703 is particularly impressive, suggesting that long-running render jobs will complete quickly. The single-thread score of 3487 in R23 indicates excellent responsiveness for everyday tasks and lightly threaded applications. The Passmark data encryption score of 21096 shows strong AES performance for security-sensitive workloads, and the extended instructions score of 26804 demonstrates robust SIMD capability for vectorized code. The 16 MB of L3 cache helps with data locality in complex workloads, though the lack of 3D V-Cache means it will not match gaming-optimized chips in that specific metric.

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

The balance between the Ryzen 9 7940H and Radeon 760M is heavily skewed toward the CPU. The CPU’s 87th percentile ranking versus the GPU’s 35th percentile creates a clear bottleneck in GPU-bound scenarios. For gaming, the GPU is the limiting factor; the 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 400 and Passmark G3D score of 5310 are far below what would be needed to utilize the CPU’s full potential. The CPU could easily feed a much more powerful discrete GPU, as evidenced by its 24703 Cinebench R23 multi-core score, but the 760M’s 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance caps frame rates.

In CPU-bound workloads like 3D rendering, video encoding, or software compilation, the balance is reversed. The CPU’s 29063 Passmark multi-thread score ensures that these tasks are GPU-independent, and the GPU’s role is minimal. However, for workloads that use both components, such as GPU-accelerated video editing, the GPU’s 35th percentile ranking becomes the constraint. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 20255 suggests some acceleration, but the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 rival score of 6049 (with a -0.5% delta) shows the 760M is not a professional-grade compute device.

FPS scaling, while not measured for this exact combination, can be inferred from the GPU’s benchmark scores. The DirectX 12 score of 25 and DirectX 11 score of 52 in Passmark are low absolute values, indicating that frame rates in modern games would be modest, likely in the 30-60 FPS range at 1080p with low to medium settings. The CPU would not be the bottleneck at these frame rates, as its single-thread score of 3952 is more than sufficient for 60 FPS gaming. The memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s from the CPU is shared with the GPU, which could cause contention in memory-intensive games, further limiting GPU performance.

The key takeaway is that this is a CPU-first system. The Radeon 760M is sufficient for casual gaming and light GPU acceleration, but any workload that demands high graphical throughput will be bottlenecked by the GPU. For users who prioritize gaming, pairing this CPU with a discrete GPU would be a significant upgrade, as the CPU has the headroom to support much faster graphics hardware.

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 40431, placing it at the 87th percentile of all CPUs. Its most notable scores include a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24703 and a single-core score of 3487. In Passmark, the multi-thread score is 29063 and the single-thread score is 3952. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 6019, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 400, and its Passmark G3D score is 5310 with a G2D score of 890. The combined percentile for this CPU+GPU pairing is 61, reflecting the strong CPU contribution pulling up the weaker GPU.

The combined picture is one of a productivity powerhouse with modest gaming capability. The CPU’s 87th percentile ranking means it outperforms the vast majority of processors, rivaling server-class Xeon parts like the Intel Xeon 6507P (40426, 0% delta) and Intel Xeon 6369P (40327, 0.3% delta). The GPU’s 35th percentile ranking, meanwhile, puts it in the lower half of all graphics solutions, trading blows with the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, 0.3% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, 0.3% delta). This disparity means that in multi-threaded CPU tasks, the system punches far above its weight class, but in GPU-accelerated tasks, it is firmly in entry-level territory.

The deltaPct values against nearest rivals show that the CPU is virtually tied with its competitors, with differences ranging from -0.2% (Core Ultra X7 368H) to +0.3% (Xeon 6369P and Core i9-13905H). For the GPU, the deltas are similarly small, from -0.5% (Quadro P2000) to +0.4% (RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server). These tight margins indicate that the 760M is well-positioned within its performance class, neither a standout nor a laggard. The overall system, with a combined percentile of 61, sits comfortably in the upper-middle tier of laptop configurations, suitable for users who need serious computational power but do not prioritize high-end gaming.

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

This build is ideal for users who need maximum CPU performance in a laptop without the need for a discrete GPU. Gamers at 1080p with low to medium settings will find the Radeon 760M adequate for esports titles, as evidenced by its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 400 and Passmark G3D score of 5310. However, those targeting 1440p or high-refresh gaming should look elsewhere, as the GPU’s 35th percentile ranking will not sustain high frame rates. Content creators working with video, audio, or large datasets will benefit from the CPU’s 24703 Cinebench R23 multi-core score and 29063 Passmark multi-thread score, which handle rendering and encoding efficiently.

Software developers will appreciate the CPU’s 3952 Passmark single-thread score for fast compilation and its 101977 integer math score for parallel builds. Students and office workers will find the 87th percentile CPU more than sufficient for multitasking, with the 35 W TDP contributing to battery life. Small business workstations that run CPU-intensive applications like financial modeling, data analysis, or CAD software will see strong performance, with the ECC memory support adding reliability. However, users in GPU-intensive fields like 3D animation or machine learning will be constrained by the 760M’s limited compute and lack of tensor cores.

The target industries are those that value CPU throughput over graphics: software engineering, financial services, academic research, and content production that relies on CPU rendering. The system is not suited for professional gaming, high-end video editing with heavy effects, or any workload that requires significant GPU compute. For these users, the CPU’s performance would be wasted without a more powerful discrete GPU to complement it.

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination of AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and AMD Radeon 760M. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data, so all frame rate expectations are estimates derived from the GPU’s synthetic benchmark scores. The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400 and Passmark G3D score of 5310 indicate entry-level performance, with the DirectX 11 score of 52 and DirectX 12 score of 25 in Passmark providing additional context. These numbers suggest that at 1080p with ultra settings, modern 3D games would run at approximately 30-45 FPS, while esports titles like CS:GO or League of Legends could reach 60-90 FPS at medium settings.

At 1440p, the 760M would struggle to maintain playable frame rates in most games, with estimates dropping to 20-30 FPS at low settings. The 16 ROPs and system-shared memory bandwidth are the primary constraints, limiting fill rate and texture throughput. The CPU’s 87th percentile performance ensures that it will not be a bottleneck at these frame rates, so the GPU is the sole limiting factor. Ray-traced games would see particularly poor performance, as the 8 RT cores, while present, lack the compute power to handle real-time ray tracing at playable speeds, with estimates below 20 FPS even at 1080p.

These estimates should be treated as rough guidelines. The 35th percentile GPU ranking places it in the same class as the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, 0.3% delta) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, 0.3% delta), which are known to handle 1080p gaming at medium settings. Users should expect to lower graphical settings to achieve smooth frame rates, and the system is best suited for older or less demanding titles.

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H uses the AMD Socket FP8, which is a mobile BGA socket, meaning the CPU is soldered to the motherboard and cannot be upgraded independently. The system supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and ECC memory is supported. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, and the GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The GPU has no power connectors and a TDP of 15 W, while the CPU has a TDP of 35 W, so the total system power draw is low, around 50 W for the main components.

There is no suggested PSU for this GPU, as it is an integrated part, but the low TDPs mean that any standard laptop power adapter is sufficient. The upgrade path is limited by the mobile form factor; the CPU and GPU are both integrated into the motherboard. The most sensible upgrade would be to add more system memory, as the GPU uses system-shared memory and would benefit from faster or higher-capacity DDR5 RAM. However, the memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s is fixed by the CPU’s memory controller, so this would only help with capacity, not speed.

For users seeking better gaming performance, the only viable upgrade is to a different laptop with a discrete GPU. The CPU’s 87th percentile ranking means it has substantial headroom, but the 760M’s 35th percentile ranking limits the system. A future laptop with the same CPU and a discrete GPU like the Radeon RX 6400 (which scores 6001, 0.3% delta) would offer a significant improvement in gaming performance while retaining the CPU’s computational strengths.

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

Q: What is the CPU’s benchmark percentile and average score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H is at the 87th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 40431.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Radeon 760M has an average score of 6019, placing it at the 35th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6400 with a score of 6001 and a delta of 0.3%, meaning the 760M is slightly ahead.

Q: What are the CPU’s Cinebench R23 scores?

A: The CPU scores 24703 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3487 in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: Does the GPU support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 760M includes 8 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features.

Q: What is the GPU’s FP32 compute performance?

A: The Radeon 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 5.323 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (1:1).

Q: Is the memory bandwidth sufficient for the GPU?

A: The system has a dual-channel DDR5 configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, but the GPU uses system-shared memory, so bandwidth is system dependent and may be a bottleneck.

Q: What is the combined percentile of this CPU+GPU pair?

A: The combined percentile is 61, reflecting the strong CPU (87th percentile) and weaker GPU (35th percentile).

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

This is a laptop-class build, as indicated by the buildClass field, combining the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H with the AMD Radeon 760M integrated graphics. The CPU is a high-end mobile processor from the 7000 series, based on Zen 4 architecture, with 8 cores and 16 threads, a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, and a 35 W TDP. The GPU is an integrated RDNA 3.0 solution with 512 shading units, 8 RT cores, and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, consuming 15 W. The overall tier is upper-midrange, with a combined percentile of 61, driven primarily by the CPU’s 87th percentile ranking and tempered by the GPU’s 35th percentile ranking.

This pairing is best described as a CPU-first ultrabook or thin-and-light workstation. It excels at compute-intensive tasks like software development, data analysis, and CPU-based rendering, as evidenced by the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24703 and Passmark multi-thread score of 29063. However, for gaming or GPU-accelerated workloads, the system is limited by the Radeon 760M’s modest performance, which is on par with entry-level discrete GPUs like the Radeon RX 6400. The build is not designed for high-refresh gaming or professional GPU work, but it offers exceptional CPU value in a low-power laptop form factor, making it a sensible choice for developers, students, and professionals who prioritize processing power over graphics.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 7940H + AMD Radeon 760M

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen 9 7940H

AMD Radeon 760M

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

4K Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

1440p Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

1080p Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Related Processors

Related Graphics Cards

Compare Your CPU

Compare Your GPU

Related PC Builds

Same CPU with Different GPUs

Same GPU with Different CPUs

Other Popular Builds