Ryzen 9 7940HS vs Athlon X4 760K

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon X4 760K
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 100 Watt
1.94
Ryzen 9 7940HS
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
19.85
+923%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Athlon X4 760K by a whopping 923% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon X4 760K and Ryzen 9 7940HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1971297
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Power efficiency1.7751.72
Architecture codenameRichland (2013−2014)Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023)
Release date1 June 2013 (11 years ago)January 2023 (1 year ago)

Detailed specifications

Athlon X4 760K and Ryzen 9 7940HS basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads416
Base clock speed3.8 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz5.2 GHz
L1 cache192K64K (per core)
L2 cache4 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm4 nm
Die size246 mm2178 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,303 million25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data+
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Athlon X4 760K and Ryzen 9 7940HS compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFM2FP8
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 760K and Ryzen 9 7940HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataRyzen AI, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
PowerNow+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 760K and Ryzen 9 7940HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 760K and Ryzen 9 7940HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1866DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon 780M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 760K and Ryzen 9 7940HS.

PCIe version2.04.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Athlon X4 760K 1.94
Ryzen 9 7940HS 19.85
+923%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Athlon X4 760K 2971
Ryzen 9 7940HS 30381
+923%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Athlon X4 760K 438
Ryzen 9 7940HS 2462
+462%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Athlon X4 760K 1039
Ryzen 9 7940HS 11559
+1013%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.94 19.85
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 4 16
Chip lithography 32 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 35 Watt

Ryzen 9 7940HS has a 923.2% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 700% more advanced lithography process, and 185.7% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 9 7940HS is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon X4 760K in performance tests.

Note that Athlon X4 760K is a desktop processor while Ryzen 9 7940HS is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 760K and Ryzen 9 7940HS, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon X4 760K
Athlon X4 760K
AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS
Ryzen 9 7940HS

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4 248 votes

Rate Athlon X4 760K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 982 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 7940HS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon X4 760K or Ryzen 9 7940HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.