SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX + AMD Radeon 740M

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)

▼

92 Score

Top 8% Ranking

92 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 8% of systems. Capable of 4K Ultra gaming and advanced rendering.

4K 60+ FPSVR ReadyRay Tracing

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

95%

GPU

88%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX

60,099 Benchmark Score

Top 5% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

AMD Radeon 740M

12,870 Benchmark Score

Top 12% 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

Optimal Performance

Your system is in the top tier. You can run any modern game at maximum settings.

4K Gaming Ready

Consider a 4K 144Hz monitor to fully utilize your hardware capabilities.

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 7945HX paired with the AMD Radeon 740M is an unusual combination: a flagship mobile processor bolted to one of the smallest integrated graphics solutions in AMD's lineup. The data shows a chip sitting in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs alongside an iGPU in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, which produces a lopsided but interesting profile — heavy multi-core muscle for productivity work, minimal graphics horsepower for anything that fills the screen with polygons. Note upfront: this exact pairing has no measured FPS entries in the database (dataIsMeasured is false and the measured FPS table is empty), so all frame-rate discussion below is estimated from benchmark scores rather than recorded gameplay.

GPU Analysis

The Radeon 740M is a Phoenix2-based integrated GPU built on TSMC's 4 nm process, using RDNA 3.0 architecture. Its specifications are modest by any standard: 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 render output units, and 4 ray tracing cores. It has no dedicated tensor cores. Peak clocks run from an 800 MHz base up to a 2800 MHz boost, and the resulting theoretical output is 22.40 GPixel/s of fill rate, 44.80 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 2.867 TFLOPS of FP32 compute — with FP16 running at the same rate (1:1).

Because this is an integrated part, memory is entirely system shared. There is no dedicated VRAM pool, no fixed bus width, and bandwidth is described only as "system dependent." That dependency matters more than usual here: the Radeon 740M's real-world performance will rise and fall with the speed and configuration of the host system's DDR5 memory, since the iGPU draws from the same dual-channel bus that feeds the CPU. A fast, well-configured memory setup is the single biggest lever available for improving this GPU's output.

The measured compute results tell the story. Geekbench OpenCL returns 10172, and Geekbench Vulkan returns 15568. For rendering work, the Vulkan figure is the more relevant one for game engines and modern renderers, while the OpenCL figure governs GPU compute in applications that use that API. Its average benchmark score across the database is 12870, placing it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs — essentially the middle of the pack, and that pack includes many discrete cards.

Against its nearest rivals, the picture is consistent. The AMD FirePro W5100 averages 12847 (deltaPct 0.2), the AMD Radeon Pro 455 averages 12831 (deltaPct 0.3), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 averages 12830 (deltaPct 0.3), and the AMD Radeon RX 580 averages 12928 (deltaPct -0.4). In other words, the 740M trades blows with those parts at essentially identical average scores, with the RX 580 a fraction ahead. That comparison is the clearest calibration available: this is entry-level graphics territory, adequate for lighter rendering loads and older or undemanding engines, but not for sustained heavy rasterization. The 4 ray tracing cores technically enable hardware RT via DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, but with only 4 RT cores the practical payoff from enabling ray tracing will be small.

FAQ

Q: Is this a gaming laptop configuration?

A: Partially. The CPU is elite — 16 cores and 32 threads at the 92nd percentile — but the Radeon 740M sits at the 53rd percentile with 2.867 TFLOPS of FP32 and 256 shading units. Expect older titles and lighter modern games at reduced settings to run; demanding AAA rendering at high settings is not realistic. No measured FPS data exists for this pairing, so these conclusions are estimated from benchmark scores.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 60099 is statistically tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX (60104, deltaPct 0) and the Intel Core i9-14900F (60008, deltaPct 0.2), marginally ahead of the Ryzen 9 7945HX3D (59641, deltaPct 0.8), and just behind the Intel Xeon Gold 6338T (60572, deltaPct -0.8). That is flagship-tier company.

Q: Does the GPU have dedicated memory?

A: No. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all "System Shared" or "System Dependent." It borrows from the laptop's DDR5 system memory over the dual-channel bus.

Q: Can the Radeon 740M do ray tracing?

A: Technically yes — it has 4 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. Realistically, the small RT core count limits how useful ray tracing will be in practice.

Q: Is the CPU good for content creation?

A: Yes, emphatically. Cinebench R23 multi-core lands at 33459 and Geekbench multi-core at 18254 — numbers that place it comfortably among top-tier mobile processors, ahead of many desktop chips.

Q: Is this a desktop or laptop build?

A: It's a laptop. The buildClass field is "laptop," the CPU uses AMD Socket FL1, and both the CPU (market segment "Mobile") and the IGP reflect mobile packaging.

Q: Is the CPU overclockable?

A: The multiplier is unlocked, which is notable for a mobile part, though cooling in a laptop chassis will constrain how much headroom is usable.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform details come almost entirely from the CPU. The Ryzen 9 7945HX uses AMD Socket FL1, supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with 83.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and offers PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes from the CPU. It also supports ECC memory — unusual for a consumer mobile part and relevant for workstation-grade stability. The integrated graphics listed with the CPU itself is a Radeon 610M, separate from the Radeon 740M in this pairing; the 740M connects via a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

Power draw is split across two numbers: the CPU carries a 55 W TDP and the iGPU 45 W. Because the 740M is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU (it draws from the platform), there is no separate PSU planning to do — and in a laptop, upgrade path is inherently constrained. The realistic "upgrade" here is not the GPU: integrated graphics cannot be swapped. The sensible next step for anyone needing more graphics performance is a machine with a substantially stronger GPU from the start, since the CPU side is already at the top of the mobile stack and won't be the limiting factor for years.

What can be tuned in place is memory. Since the 740M depends entirely on system bandwidth, the fastest supported DDR5 configuration in dual-channel is the one meaningful performance lever for graphics. Beyond that, the platform's PCIe Gen 5 lanes and 28-lane count mean the CPU itself is forward-looking — bandwidth-hungry workloads and peripherals are well served.

Balance and Bottleneck

The combined percentile for this pairing is 73, but that figure masks a wide internal imbalance. The CPU sits at the 92nd percentile; the GPU at the 53rd. That gap of 39 percentile points is the defining characteristic of the build.

In practice, the GPU is the bottleneck in essentially every graphics-bound task. The CPU's 3DMark max-threads score of 13612 and single-thread score of 1058 show there is far more processor available than the 740M can consume — the physics and draw-call side of any game engine will finish waiting long before the rasterizer does. The PassMark physics score of 2500 reinforces this: simulation-heavy scenes that would drag down lesser CPUs are handled comfortably, while the GPU's 44.80 GTexel/s texture rate and 8 ROPs set the hard ceiling on what appears on screen.

Flip the workload, and the bottleneck disappears. In CPU-bound tasks — compiling, encoding, number crunching — the 740M is irrelevant and the Ryzen 9's 16 cores do the work. PassMark multithread of 54548, Geekbench multi-core of 18254, and Cinebench R23 multi of 33459 all reflect a system with no computational bottleneck at all. The correct mental model: this is a fast workstation with a display adapter attached, not a balanced gaming machine.

The scaling data within the CPU's own 3DMark results shows near-saturation: 12737 at 16 threads versus 13612 at the maximum thread count. That small gap between 16-thread and max-thread scores indicates the CPU's throughput is already nearly fully exploited by thread scaling alone, which again underlines that the processor side is not what limits this system.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU numbers, in full: 3DMark single-thread 1058, 2-thread 2063, 4-thread 3972, 8-thread 7355, 16-thread 12737, max-threads 13612. Cinebench R15 multi 5289 and single 308; Cinebench R23 multi 33459 and single 1940; Geekbench multi 18254 and single 2391; PassMark single-thread 4040 and multithread 54548. PassMark subscores include integer math 207524, floating point 123390, data compression 707249, encryption 42703, extended instructions 51834, prime finding 284, string sorting 81736, and physics 2500.

The interpretation: single-thread performance is strong (a 1940 Cinebench R23 single-core score is competitive with top desktop parts), and multi-thread performance is excellent — the R23 multi result of 33459 is squarely flagship-mobile territory. The average benchmark score of 60099 puts the chip at the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, statistically indistinguishable from the Ryzen 7 8745HX (60104), the Core i9-14900F (60008), and the Ryzen 9 7945HX3D (59641), and within a whisker of the Xeon Gold 6338T (60572). Notably, matching a Xeon server processor on average score with a mobile part is a clear statement of compute density.

The GPU side: Geekbench OpenCL 10172, Geekbench Vulkan 15568, average score 12870, 53rd percentile. Its rivals — FirePro W5100 at 12847, Radeon Pro 455 at 12831, GTX 590 at 12830, RX 580 at 12928 — are all within a fraction of a percent, so the 740M is precisely calibrated against that cohort.

The combined picture: a 73rd-percentile system whose character is determined almost entirely by workload type. CPU-heavy tasks perform like a 92nd-percentile machine; GPU-heavy tasks perform like a 53rd-percentile one. Any frame-rate estimates derived from these scores should be treated as approximations, since no measured FPS data exists for this pairing in the database.

Who Should Build It

This configuration suits users whose work is compute-heavy and whose graphics demands are light. Software developers top the list: the 16-core, 32-thread Zen 4 processor with a Geekbench multi-core of 18254 chews through large codebases and parallel builds. Data analysts and researchers benefit from the same multi-core throughput plus the integer math (207524) and floating point (123390) subscores, and the ECC memory support adds a workstation-grade safety net for long-running computations.

Content creators who edit video but do not do heavy GPU-accelerated effects work are well served — the CPU's encoding throughput (data compression score of 707249) and sheer multi-core numbers carry the load. 3D artists who render on the CPU can exploit all 33459 Cinebench R23 points; those who render on the GPU cannot, given the 740M's 2.867 TFLOPS and 53rd-percentile standing.

Students and small-business workstation users get a machine that will stay responsive for years on the productivity side. Gamers are the mismatched group: anyone targeting high-refresh or high-resolution gaming should not choose this pairing, because the GPU cohort it belongs to (alongside the RX 580 at deltaPct -0.4) cannot deliver that experience. Casual or older-game players are the exception.

CPU Analysis

The Ryzen 9 7945HX is a Zen 4 "Dragon Range" processor manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm node, with 13,140 million transistors spread across two 71 mm² dies. It runs a 2.50 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.40 GHz, with an unlocked multiplier — a rarity in the mobile segment. Cache is generous: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3.

The benchmark scores translate directly to real workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 33459 means rendering and compilation jobs finish in the same time as top desktop processors; the single-core 1940 means lightly threaded applications — most office software, browsers, many games' logic loops — run without compromise. Geekbench's 2391 single-core and 18254 multi-core figures echo the same shape: top-tier on both axes, with no weak side.

The thread-scaling curve is instructive. Going from 1 to 2 threads in 3DMark nearly doubles throughput (1058 to 2063), 4 threads reach 3972, 8 threads reach 7355, and 16 threads hit 12737. Scaling efficiency stays high through the mid-range and only flattens near the top (12737 to 13612 from 16 to max threads), which is typical behavior when power and thermal limits in a 55 W mobile envelope begin to bind. For real workloads, that means jobs that parallelize across 8-16 threads — video encodes, code builds, batch processing — get nearly the full benefit of the core count.

Against rivals, it holds its own everywhere: tied with the Ryzen 7 8745HX and Core i9-14900F at deltaPct 0 and 0.2 respectively, and effectively level with the Xeon Gold 6338T at deltaPct -0.8 — a server chip. The 92nd-percentile ranking is well earned.

Build Overview

This is a laptop-class pairing: a 16-core Zen 4 flagship mobile CPU (AMD Socket FL1, 55 W TDP, DDR5 with ECC support, PCIe Gen 5 with 28 CPU lanes) matched with a small RDNA 3.0 integrated GPU on 4 nm (256 shaders, 45 W, system-shared memory). The CPU entered production in January 2023; the 740M is an Active part released January 2024. Both remain in Active production status.

The overall tier is best described as a high-end compute laptop with entry-level graphics. The combined percentile of 73 lands in the upper third of all systems, but the internal split — 92nd percentile CPU against 53rd percentile GPU — means that single number understates the machine for productivity work and overstates it for gaming. Class it as a mobile workstation, not a gaming laptop, and the numbers make sense.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: Not recommended. The Radeon 740M's 53rd percentile, 2.867 TFLOPS, and its proximity to the RX 590-class cohort (GTX 590 at deltaPct 0.3, RX 580 at deltaPct -0.4) place it far below what high-refresh play requires. No measured FPS data exists for this pairing; estimates from these scores point to modest frame rates in demanding titles even at reduced settings. Older or lightweight esports-style games remain viable.

Streaming: CPU-side, excellent — encoding is well covered by the multi-core throughput (PassMark multithread 54548, compression 707249). GPU-side, the 740M has no spare capacity to render a game and push frames simultaneously. Streaming non-gaming content works; streaming demanding gameplay does not.

Video editing: Strong. Timeline scrubbing and export rely heavily on CPU cores, and 33459 in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 18254 Geekbench multi-core delivers flagship-mobile edit performance. GPU-accelerated effects are the weak spot — the OpenCL score of 10172 limits how much the iGPU can offload — so CPU-based rendering paths are the better route here.

3D rendering: Split verdict. CPU rendering is superb: 16 cores and 32 threads at the 92nd percentile compete with the Xeon Gold 6338T (deltaPct -0.8). GPU rendering is not viable for serious work; 256 shading units and 4 RT cores are simply too few. Choose renderers that scale on CPU.

Software development: The ideal use case. Compilation parallelizes across all 32 threads, single-thread responsiveness is strong (Geekbench single-core 2391), and ECC memory support protects long builds and test suites. This pairing performs like the i9-14900F cohort (deltaPct 0.2) in average score — desktop-class compile times in a laptop.

Student and office work: Massive overkill in the best way. Documents, browsing, and conferencing touch a fraction of the 1058 3DMark single-thread score and 4040 PassMark single-thread result, so the machine will feel fast indefinitely, with the 740M's Vulkan score of 15568 covering light GPU-accelerated UI tasks. Students in compute-heavy fields — engineering, data science — get room to grow into the full 16-core budget.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX + AMD Radeon 740M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX

AMD Radeon 740M

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Optimal Performance

4K Gaming Ready

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

GPU Analysis

FAQ

Upgrade Path and Platform

Balance and Bottleneck

Benchmark Performance

Who Should Build It

CPU Analysis

Build Overview

Usage Scenarios

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