SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 7940H + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q

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

83 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 17% 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%
VS
GPU
74%
PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 9 7940H

40,431 Benchmark Score
Top 8% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q

0 Benchmark Score
Top 26% 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 and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q pairing is a mobile workstation configuration that lands in the 69th percentile overall, a figure driven almost entirely by the CPU’s strong showing rather than the GPU’s mid-pack placement. The processor sits in the 87th percentile against all CPUs, while the graphics card is exactly at the 50th percentile, making this a lopsided combination where compute-heavy tasks far outpace the visual rendering ceiling. The data shows a system built for sustained multi-threaded productivity, with gaming and graphics performance that is competent but not class-leading.

CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H is an 8-core, 16-thread processor from the 7000 series, built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename. It is manufactured on TSMC’s 4 nm process node, containing 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The base clock is 4.00 GHz with a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, and the chip carries a 35 W TDP. This is a mobile part, using the AMD Socket FP8, and it supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, delivering 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported, which is a relevant feature for workstation reliability.

Benchmark results show a processor that excels in multi-core workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24,703 is the headline figure, while the single-core score of 3,487 indicates strong per-thread performance. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score drops to 10,375 and single-core to 1,464, consistent with the older test’s scaling. The Cinebench R15 results follow the same pattern: 2,490 multi-core and 351 single-core. The PassMark suite reinforces this picture, with a multi-thread score of 29,063 and a single-thread score of 3,952. Integer math scores 101,977, floating-point math scores 62,057, and extended instructions score 26,804. Data compression hits 352,077, while data encryption is 21,096. Random string sorting reaches 42,093, and physics scores 1,300. The find prime numbers test is the outlier at 81, which is a lower score relative to the other sub-tests but does not detract from the overall pattern.

The average benchmark score for this CPU is 40,431, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the Intel Xeon 6507P scores 40,426 with a 0% delta, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 40,518 with a -0.2% delta, the Intel Xeon 6369P scores 40,327 with a 0.3% delta, and the Intel Core i9-13905H scores 40,313 with a 0.3% delta. The data indicates that the 7940H is effectively a statistical tie with these four competitors, with performance differences under half a percent. For real workloads, this means the 7940H sits at the top of the mobile CPU hierarchy, trading blows with the fastest laptop chips from Intel and server-class Xeon parts.

The architecture details matter for workload behavior. Zen 4 on a 4 nm node delivers high instructions-per-clock, and the 5.20 GHz boost clock ensures single-threaded responsiveness. The 16 MB shared L3 cache, along with 1 MB L2 per core and 64 KB L1 per core, feeds the cores adequately for most tasks. The integrated Radeon 780M graphics provide a fallback display output, but the primary graphics work is handled by the discrete GPU. The 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU offer sufficient bandwidth for a high-end GPU and fast NVMe storage. This is a CPU that will not bottleneck productivity software, and the benchmark scores confirm it is among the fastest mobile processors available.

Balance and Bottleneck

The balance between this CPU and GPU is skewed toward the processor. The CPU’s 87th percentile ranking versus the GPU’s 50th percentile creates a clear hierarchy: this system is compute-bound in the sense that the CPU can handle far more demanding logic, compilation, and rendering tasks than the GPU can visually output. In gaming, the GPU will be the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the RTX 5000 Max-Q’s mid-pack position caps frame rates well below what the CPU could theoretically feed. At lower resolutions, the CPU’s strong single-thread score of 3,952 in PassMark and 3,487 in Cinebench R23 ensures it will not hold back the GPU, but the GPU’s 50th percentile means it will still be the bottleneck for achieving high frame rates.

For productivity workloads, the balance flips. The CPU’s multi-core scores, particularly the 24,703 in Cinebench R23 and the 29,063 in PassMark multi-thread, are far above the GPU’s capability in compute tasks. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 8.294 TFLOPS and FP16 of 16.59 TFLOPS is modest, so any workload that relies on GPU compute, such as rendering or machine learning inference, will be limited by the graphics card. The CPU has 8 cores and 16 threads, which is ample for most software development, spreadsheet analysis, and even some light 3D rendering, but the GPU’s 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a reasonable buffer for graphics memory-intensive tasks.

The FPS scaling picture is incomplete because no measured FPS data exists for this exact combination. The data indicates that frame rates are estimated from the benchmark scores, and the estimates would show the GPU as the primary limiter in most gaming scenarios. The CPU’s 0.3% delta over the Intel Core i9-13905H in average score suggests it is not a meaningful differentiator in gaming, where GPU performance dominates. The bottleneck analysis is clear: for gaming, the GPU is the ceiling; for CPU-bound tasks like code compilation, video encoding, or 3D scene setup, the CPU is the star and the GPU is sufficient but not exceptional.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU’s benchmark scores are the defining feature of this build. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24,703 places it in the upper echelon of mobile processors, and the single-core score of 3,487 shows it can handle lightly-threaded tasks with ease. The PassMark multi-thread score of 29,063 and single-thread score of 3,952 corroborate the Cinebench results. The average benchmark score of 40,431 puts the CPU in the 87th percentile, with nearest rivals within a 0.3% delta, meaning this is a top-tier mobile CPU that matches the best Intel and Xeon parts.

The GPU has no benchmark scores listed in the data, and its average benchmark score is 0, with no nearest rivals provided. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 50, which is the median. This indicates that the Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q is an average-performing GPU relative to the entire GPU landscape, which includes desktop parts. The GPU’s specs support this assessment: 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores. The base clock is 600 MHz with a boost of 1,350 MHz, and the 16 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 1,500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed. The 256-bit bus provides 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Pixel rate is 86.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 259.2 GTexel/s. This is a Turing-architecture part on a 12 nm node, with 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The combined picture is a system where the CPU contributes the vast majority of the performance value. The combined percentile of 69 is a weighted average that reflects the CPU’s high ranking pulling up the GPU’s median placement. The combined percentile of 69 is above the midpoint, indicating that this is a capable system overall, but it is not a high-end gaming machine. The GPU’s 50th percentile means it will deliver playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p in most titles, but it will struggle at 4K or with maxed-out settings in demanding games. The CPU’s strong scores suggest that any performance ceiling in gaming will be the GPU, not the processor.

Who Should Build It

This laptop configuration is best suited for professionals who need heavy CPU compute and only moderate GPU acceleration. Content creators who work with video editing, 3D rendering, or software development will benefit from the 8-core, 16-thread CPU and its 24,703 Cinebench R23 multi-core score. The 87th percentile CPU ranking means tasks like code compilation, video encoding, and multi-threaded rendering will complete quickly. The 35 W TDP suggests this is a power-efficient chip that can sustain high clocks without excessive heat, which is important for laptop use.

Students and small business users who run productivity suites, web browsers, and light programming environments will find this CPU far more than sufficient. The single-thread score of 3,487 in Cinebench R23 ensures snappy application launches and responsive typing. The GPU’s 16 GB of VRAM is useful for those who need to load large datasets into graphics memory for visualization or machine learning tasks, even if the compute throughput is not top-tier. The ECC memory support adds a layer of reliability for financial modeling or scientific computing where data integrity is critical.

Gamers should look elsewhere if they prioritize high-refresh gaming, as the GPU’s 50th percentile ranking will limit frame rates. However, for a professional who occasionally games at 1080p or 1440p with medium to high settings, this system will suffice. The CPU’s 0.3% delta over the Intel Core i9-13905H means gaming performance is not CPU-limited, so any frame rate issues will stem from the GPU. The target user is the mobile workstation professional who values CPU throughput over GPU rasterization speed.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: Estimated FPS will be moderate, as the GPU’s 50th percentile ranking indicates average performance. At 1080p, the CPU’s single-thread score of 3,952 ensures it will not bottleneck, but the GPU’s 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 performance will cap frame rates well below what high-refresh monitors demand. Expect playable but not competitive frame rates.

Streaming: The CPU’s 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 24,703 Cinebench R23 multi-core score, make this a capable streaming platform. The x264 encoder will run well on the CPU, while the GPU’s NVENC (via 384 tensor cores) can offload encoding if software supports it. The system can handle simultaneous gaming and streaming, though the GPU’s mid-pack performance means game settings will need adjustment.

Video editing: The CPU excels here. Cinebench R23 multi-core of 24,703 and PassMark multi-thread of 29,063 indicate that timeline scrubbing, export encoding, and effect rendering will be fast. The GPU’s 16 GB VRAM helps with previewing large projects, but its 50th percentile compute performance means GPU-accelerated effects will not be as quick as higher-end parts.

3D rendering: CPU-based rendering will be strong, with the 8-core processor delivering competitive times in applications like Blender or V-Ray that use the CPU. GPU rendering will be limited by the RTX 5000 Max-Q’s 8.294 TFLOPS FP32, which is average. The 48 RT cores provide some ray tracing acceleration, but the overall render performance is below workstation GPUs with higher percentiles.

Software development: The CPU is ideal for developers. The PassMark integer math score of 101,977 and data compression score of 352,077 indicate fast compilation and build times. The 16 threads allow parallel builds, and the single-thread score of 3,952 ensures quick IDE responsiveness. The 16 GB of RAM is sufficient for most projects, and ECC support adds stability.

Student and office work: This is overkill, but it will handle any office workload with ease. The CPU’s single-thread performance ensures instant response in word processors and spreadsheets. The GPU is irrelevant for these tasks, and the 35 W TDP means the laptop will run cool and quiet. The 16 GB VRAM is unused, but it does not hurt.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s percentile ranking against all CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H is in the 87th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40,431.

Q: How close is the CPU performance to its nearest rival?

A: The nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 6507P with an average score of 40,426, which is a 0% delta from the 7940H’s 40,431. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is 0.2% slower, and the Intel Xeon 6369P and Intel Core i9-13905H are each 0.3% faster.

Q: What is the GPU’s percentile ranking against all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q is in the 50th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 0 (no benchmark data is listed).

Q: Does this system support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H supports ECC memory, which is a benefit for workstation reliability.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of this CPU?

A: The CPU supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, providing 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Q: Are there any measured FPS figures for this build?

A: No, the data contains no measured FPS rows for this exact CPU and GPU combination. All FPS discussion is estimated from the benchmark scores.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory configuration?

A: The GPU has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s and an effective speed of 12 Gbps.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses the AMD Socket FP8, which is a mobile platform. Upgrading the CPU in a laptop is generally not feasible, so the upgrade path is limited to what the system offers. The CPU supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, so upgrading to higher-capacity or faster DDR5 modules is possible if the laptop allows it. The CPU provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which can support a fast NVMe SSD, and the GPU uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which is sufficient for the Turing architecture.

The GPU has a TDP of 80 W, and the CPU has a TDP of 35 W, for a combined 115 W of power draw. The suggested PSU is not listed, but the total power draw is modest for a laptop. The GPU is marked as end-of-life, with a release date of May 26, 2019, and its successor is Ampere-MW. This means the GPU is outdated, and the primary upgrade path would be to a newer laptop altogether. The CPU is still in active production, so it is the more future-proof component.

A sensible next upgrade would be a newer laptop with a higher-percentile GPU, as the CPU’s 87th percentile ranking is already strong. The RTX 5000 Max-Q’s 50th percentile is the weak point, and replacing the entire system with a newer mobile workstation that pairs a similar CPU with a GPU in the 80th percentile or higher would yield a more balanced build. The platform is not upgradable in a meaningful way beyond RAM and storage, so the next step is a full system replacement.

Build Overview

This is a laptop build pairing the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H with the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q. The build class is laptop, and the combined percentile is 69. The CPU is the star, ranking in the 87th percentile, while the GPU sits at the 50th percentile. The overall tier is above-average, driven by the CPU’s strong multi-core performance, but the GPU holds the system back from being a high-end workstation or gaming machine. The CPU’s 8 cores, 16 threads, and 24,703 Cinebench R23 multi-core score make this a productivity-first system, while the GPU’s 16 GB of VRAM and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth provide adequate graphics memory but average compute throughput.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU and GPU combination. The data contains no measuredFps rows, so all frame rate figures are estimates based on the benchmark scores. The CPU’s high single-thread performance (3,952 in PassMark, 3,487 in Cinebench R23) means it will not be a bottleneck in gaming. The GPU’s 50th percentile ranking and 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 performance suggest it will deliver playable frame rates at 1080p in most titles, with 1440p being a stretch for demanding games. At 4K, the GPU will likely struggle to maintain 60 FPS in AAA titles on ultra settings. The 16 GB of VRAM is ample for current games, and the 384.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient, but the raw compute power limits the GPU to mid-range gaming performance. For esports titles at 1080p, the estimated frame rates could be high, but for modern AAA games, expect medium-to-high settings at 1080p to achieve smooth gameplay. The data clearly indicates the gaming experience will be average, matching the GPU’s 50th percentile placement.