Ryzen 9 7940HS vs EPYC 7532

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7532
2020
32 cores / 64 threads, 200 Watt
33.21
+74%
Ryzen 9 7940HS
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
19.09

EPYC 7532 outperforms Ryzen 9 7940HS by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7532 and Ryzen 9 7940HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking119309
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerLaptop
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency15.7151.62
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023)
Release date19 February 2020 (4 years ago)January 2023 (1 year ago)

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7532 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 cores32 (Dotriaconta-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads6416
Base clock speed2.4 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz5.2 GHz
Multiplier24no data
L1 cache2 MB64K (per core)
L2 cache16 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache256 MB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data178 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistorsno data25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7532 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 configurationno data1
SocketSocket SP3FP8
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7532 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++
Precision Boost 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7532 and Ryzen 9 7940HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7532 and Ryzen 9 7940HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR5
Maximum memory size4 TiBno data
Max memory channels8no data
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon 780M ( - 2800 MHz)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7532 and Ryzen 9 7940HS.

PCIe versionno data4.0
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.

EPYC 7532 33.21
+74%
Ryzen 9 7940HS 19.09

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.

EPYC 7532 52755
+73.9%
Ryzen 9 7940HS 30331

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.

EPYC 7532 1130
Ryzen 9 7940HS 2460
+118%

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.

EPYC 7532 9315
Ryzen 9 7940HS 11573
+24.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.21 19.09
Physical cores 32 8
Threads 64 16
Chip lithography 7 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 35 Watt

EPYC 7532 has a 74% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

Ryzen 9 7940HS, on the other hand, has a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 471.4% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 7532 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 9 7940HS in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7532 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 9 7940HS is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7532 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 EPYC 7532
EPYC 7532
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.


4.5 28 votes

Rate EPYC 7532 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 1021 vote

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 EPYC 7532 or Ryzen 9 7940HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.