SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

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

86 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 14% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
Well Balanced
CPU
96%
VS
GPU
76%
PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX

69,875 Benchmark Score
Top 4% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

1,285 Benchmark Score
Top 24% 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

This is a profoundly unbalanced pairing. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is a desktop-class, 16-core monster that sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is an end-of-life Turing-era professional GPU that lands in the 7th percentile of all GPUs. The data shows a system where the processor is capable of workstation-class compute and the graphics card is a legacy part with limited VRAM and dated architecture. Because the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact combination, all gaming and frame-rate discussion below is estimated from the benchmark scores and should be treated as an analytical projection rather than a tested result.

CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is a 16-core, 32-thread processor built on the Zen 4 architecture (Dragon Range codename) using a 5 nm TSMC process. It operates with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, with a TDP of 55 W. The chip is equipped with 64 MB of L3 cache, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 KB of L1 per core, totaling 13,140 million transistors across a dual-chiplet design (2x 71 mm² die size). It supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a peak bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and the integrated Radeon 610M GPU provides basic display output capabilities.

Benchmark results indicate exceptional multi-threaded throughput. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 29400 is the headline figure, placing the chip in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The 3DMark max-thread score of 13447 and the 16-thread score of 12501 confirm that scaling holds well across heavily parallel workloads. For real-world applications, this translates to raw rendering, video encoding, and code compilation performance that outpaces the vast majority of mobile processors. The nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (avg score 69996, delta -0.2%), Intel Core i7-14700KF (avg score 70163, delta -0.4%), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (avg score 69515, delta +0.5%), and Intel Core i7-14700K (avg score 69355, delta +0.7%) — the Ryzen 9 7940HX essentially trades blows with these desktop parts, sitting within 0.7% of all of them, which is remarkable for a mobile chip.

Single-thread performance is also strong but less dominant. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1807 and the 3DMark single-thread score of 1027 show a capable core design, though not a record-setter. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 2001 and 4-thread score of 3844 indicate solid scaling at low thread counts, which matters for legacy applications and lightly threaded workloads. The PassMark suite reinforces the picture: multithread score of 53204, integer math of 202883, floating-point math of 121383, and data compression of 693741 all point to a processor that excels in scientific computing, financial modeling, and content creation. The extended instructions score of 51029 suggests the AVX-512-class vector performance is intact, which is valuable for specific engineering and AI workloads.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX uses AMD Socket FL1, which is specific to the Dragon Range mobile platform. This is not a desktop socket, so the upgrade path is limited to the laptop chassis itself — users cannot swap the CPU independently. The platform supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a measured bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The CPU provides 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which offers substantial bandwidth for NVMe storage and external GPU enclosures, though the integrated GPU (Radeon 610M) and the discrete GPU both share the platform's overall I/O budget.

The TDP of 55 W for the CPU is modest for a 16-core part, indicating that the laptop manufacturer has tuned the power delivery for sustained loads rather than burst performance. The GPU has a TDP of 80 W and uses an MXM Module form factor, which in theory allows for GPU replacement in some laptops, but this is increasingly rare in modern designs. The GPU runs on a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, which is a generation older than the CPU's PCIe Gen 5 support — this creates a potential bottleneck for GPU-to-CPU data transfer, though for most workloads the impact is modest.

A sensible next upgrade for this platform would be more memory, as DDR5 capacity and speed directly impact the CPU's ability to feed its 16 cores. The current memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s is respectable but not exceptional for the class. Users looking to extend the system's life should focus on storage, as the PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU allow for the fastest available NVMe SSDs. The PSU headroom is not explicitly listed in the data (suggestedPsu is null for the GPU), but the combined CPU TDP of 55 W and GPU TDP of 80 W total 135 W for the two primary compute components, which is modest for a laptop and suggests the power brick is not the limiting factor. The real upgrade bottleneck is the GPU — it is the clear weak link, and any meaningful performance uplift would require a new laptop with a modern GPU rather than a component swap.

Gaming Performance

The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this combination, so all gaming figures below are estimates derived from the CPU and GPU benchmark scores, not tested results. The GPU is the limiting factor in virtually every gaming scenario. The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1285, which places it in the 7th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (avg score 1281, delta +0.3%), AMD Radeon R9 380 (avg score 1293, delta -0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 (avg score 1267, delta +1.4%), and NVIDIA NVS 4200M (avg score 1267, delta +1.4%). These are all entry-level or legacy parts, which tells you everything about the GPU's gaming ceiling.

At 1080p with ultra settings, this GPU would struggle to maintain 30 FPS in most modern titles. The 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is simply insufficient for high-texture workloads at high resolutions. The GPU's FP32 throughput of 5.299 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 88.32 GPixel/s are indicative of a mid-range part from 2019, not a 2024 gaming solution. The CPU, by contrast, would easily feed any game — the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 29400 and the 94th percentile CPU ranking mean that frame rates will be dictated almost entirely by the GPU. At lower settings (720p or 1080p with reduced textures), the GPU could push 40-60 FPS in esports titles, but the experience would be far from smooth in AAA games. The CPU's Radeon 610M integrated graphics are even weaker, so there is no fallback for gaming.

Balance and Bottleneck

This system is the definition of a CPU-bound build, but not in the way that term is usually used. The CPU is so far ahead of the GPU that the graphics card is the absolute bottleneck in every workload that touches it. The CPU sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 69875, while the GPU sits in the 7th percentile with an average score of 1285. That is a delta of roughly 54x in raw benchmark terms, though the workloads are not directly comparable. The combined percentile of the pair is 51, which is exactly the middle of the pack — a statistical reflection of how the strong CPU drags the average up while the weak GPU pulls it down.

In gaming, the bottleneck is unambiguously the GPU. The CPU can process game logic, physics, and draw calls faster than the GPU can render frames, so any increase in resolution or graphics settings will tank frame rates immediately. In productivity workloads, the balance is reversed — the CPU dominates everything, and the GPU's role is minimal. For 3D rendering in professional applications, the Quadro RTX 3000's 30 RT cores and 240 tensor cores provide some hardware acceleration, but the raw compute of the CPU is the primary driver. The FPS scaling evidence is absent (no measured data), but from the benchmark scores, it is clear that the GPU would need to be several generations newer and several times more powerful to come anywhere near the CPU's level of performance. This is a workstation CPU paired with a glorified display adapter.

GPU Analysis

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is a Turing-architecture part (TU106 chip) manufactured on a 12 nm TSMC process with 10,800 million transistors on a 445 mm² die. It has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has 1920 shading units, 120 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 30 RT cores, and 240 tensor cores. Clock speeds are modest: 945 MHz base and 1380 MHz boost. The memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Pixel rate is 88.32 GPixel/s, texture rate is 165.6 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 5.299 TFLOPS. FP16 is 10.60 TFLOPS (2:1).

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1285 is the only GPU benchmark in the data, and it is catastrophic relative to the CPU. The GPU is in the 7th percentile of all GPUs, which means 93% of all GPUs in the database are faster. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 610, a card from 2012, and it is within 1.4% of that part. The RTX 3000 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it has modern API compatibility, but the hardware underneath is simply too weak to leverage those APIs effectively. The 6 GB VRAM is a hard constraint for modern rendering workloads — 3D scenes with high-resolution textures will exceed this quickly.

The tensor cores (240) and RT cores (30) are present for AI and ray tracing, but their performance is limited by the overall compute throughput. For professional workloads, this GPU would be acceptable for basic CAD, 2D design, and light 3D modeling, but it would struggle with complex scenes, high-poly counts, or real-time ray tracing. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16, which is a generation behind the CPU's PCIe Gen 5 support, further limiting data transfer speeds to and from the GPU. The production status is end-of-life, with a release date of 2019-05-26, making this a five-year-old design at the time of this analysis.

Who Should Build It

This pairing does not suit a single coherent user profile. The CPU is aimed at professionals and enthusiasts who need massive multi-threaded compute in a laptop form factor — think video editors working with 4K or 8K footage, 3D artists rendering scenes, software developers compiling large codebases, and researchers running simulations. The GPU, however, is a professional workstation part that is now end-of-life and underpowered. It would serve a user who needs certified drivers for legacy CAD software and basic 3D acceleration but does not push graphics hard.

Students in engineering or computer science would benefit from the CPU for compilation and simulation, but they would be better served by a cheaper CPU and a better GPU for gaming or GPU-accelerated coursework. Small business workstations that run CPU-intensive financial modeling or data analysis scripts would see strong performance, but the GPU would be wasted unless they specifically need Quadro certification. Content creators who work primarily in CPU-bound codecs (like x264 or x265 encoding) would see excellent performance, but any GPU-accelerated effects in Premiere Pro or After Effects would be slow. The honest answer is that this is a mismatched build, and the target user is someone who inherited a powerful CPU platform and does not need significant GPU compute — a rare and narrow niche.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU benchmarks are uniformly strong. Cinebench R23 multicore: 29400, single-core: 1807. 3DMark: 13447 max threads, 12501 at 16 threads, 7158 at 8 threads, 3844 at 4 threads, 2001 at 2 threads, 1027 single thread. PassMark: multithread 53204, single thread 3942, integer math 202883, floating-point math 121383, data compression 693741, data encryption 41974, extended instructions 51029, find prime numbers 273, random string sorting 81775, physics 2297. The average CPU benchmark score is 69875, and the percentile vs all CPUs is 94. The nearest rivals are within 0.7% of the CPU's average score, confirming it performs at the level of desktop flagship parts from the same era.

The GPU has a single benchmark: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1285. The percentile vs all GPUs is 7, and the average benchmark score is 1285. The nearest rivals are within 1.4% of this score, and they are all ancient or entry-level parts. The combined percentile of the pair is 51, which is a statistical midpoint that obscures the extreme imbalance — the CPU is top-tier and the GPU is bottom-tier, and they average out to "average." The combined picture is clear: this system will excel at CPU-bound tasks and fail at GPU-bound tasks, with no middle ground. The data shows a performance profile that is only sensible for a user who never games and never touches GPU-accelerated rendering.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's most impressive benchmark score?

A: The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 29400 is the standout figure, placing the CPU in the 94th percentile of all CPUs and within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, a desktop flagship.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1285 is within 1.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (1281), the AMD Radeon R9 380 (1293), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 (1267), and the NVIDIA NVS 4200M (1267). All of these are legacy or entry-level parts.

Q: What memory does the CPU support?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a peak bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported.

Q: What is the GPU's VRAM capacity and bandwidth?

A: The GPU has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory operates at 1750 MHz, which is 14 Gbps effective.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck for gaming?

A: The GPU is the absolute bottleneck. The GPU is in the 7th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 94th percentile, so the GPU will limit frame rates in every gaming scenario.

Q: What socket does the CPU use?

A: The CPU uses AMD Socket FL1, which is a mobile-only socket. It cannot be installed in a desktop motherboard.

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

A: The combined percentile is 51, which reflects the extreme imbalance: the CPU's high percentile and the GPU's low percentile average out to the middle of the pack.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: Not viable. The GPU's 1285 Steel Nomad score and 7th percentile ranking mean that even at 1080p low settings, modern games would struggle to reach 60 FPS. The CPU would be idle waiting for the GPU. This is not a gaming laptop.

Streaming: The CPU can handle encoding (x264) with ease — its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 29400 and PassMark multithread score of 53204 mean that software encoding would not impact game performance. However, the GPU is too weak to run modern games at playable frame rates, so streaming would only be practical for low-end or older titles.

Video editing: Excellent for CPU-bound codecs. The 16 cores and 32 threads with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 29400 will crush 4K timeline renders in software. The GPU's 6 GB VRAM and 5.299 TFLOPS would handle basic effects and color grading, but GPU-accelerated exports would be slow.

3D rendering: The CPU is the star here — the 94th percentile ranking and 693741 data compression score indicate strong performance in CPU-based renderers like Blender's Cycles (CPU mode) or V-Ray. The GPU's 30 RT cores and 240 tensor cores provide some acceleration, but the 1285 Steel Nomad score means GPU rendering would be painfully slow.

Software development: Ideal for the CPU. Compilation is heavily multi-threaded, and the 202883 integer math score plus 53204 multithread score mean large codebases will build quickly. The GPU is irrelevant for most development tasks, making this a functional if unusual choice.

Student and office work: Overkill for the CPU and underpowered for the GPU. Spreadsheets, documents, and web browsing would run flawlessly on the CPU, but the GPU offers no advantage over integrated graphics for these tasks. The 80 W GPU TDP and end-of-life status make this a poor choice for a general-purpose student laptop.