Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS vs EPYC 7F52
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7F52 outperforms Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7F52 and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 192 | 350 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.70 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | AMD Phoenix (Zen 4, Ryzen 7040) |
| Power efficiency | 15.87 | 47.94 |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) |
| Release date | 14 April 2020 (4 years ago) | 13 June 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,100 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7F52 and Ryzen 9 PRO 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 cores | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 5.2 GHz |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 512 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 16 MB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 74 mm2 | 178 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 3,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7F52 and Ryzen 9 PRO 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 configuration | 2 | no data |
| Socket | SP3 | FP7/FP8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7F52 and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7F52 and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7F52 and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon 780M ( - 2800 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7F52 and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | no data |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.01 | 17.74 |
| Recency | 14 April 2020 | 13 June 2023 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 8 |
| Threads | 32 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 35 Watt |
EPYC 7F52 has a 46.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 342.9% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 7F52 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7F52 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7F52 and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
