Ryzen 9 7900 vs Microsoft SQ1
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Microsoft SQ1 by a whopping 740% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Microsoft SQ1 and Ryzen 9 7900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1484 | 133 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 62.36 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Qualcomm Snapdragon | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.12 | 44.78 |
| Architecture codename | Cortex-A76 / A55 (Kryo 495) (2019) | Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 2 October 2019 (5 years ago) | 14 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $429 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Microsoft SQ1 and Ryzen 9 7900 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 5.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | no data | 2x 71 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 47 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 13,140 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Microsoft SQ1 and Ryzen 9 7900 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 3000 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Microsoft SQ1 and Ryzen 9 7900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 5 nm, 0.650 - 1.475V |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Microsoft SQ1 and Ryzen 9 7900 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Microsoft SQ1 and Ryzen 9 7900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-5200 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Qualcomm Adreno 685 | AMD Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Microsoft SQ1 and Ryzen 9 7900.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 24 |
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
WebXPRT 3
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.73 | 31.34 |
| Recency | 2 October 2019 | 14 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 12 |
| Threads | 8 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 3000 Watt | 65 Watt |
Ryzen 9 7900 has a 740.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 4515.4% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 9 7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Microsoft SQ1 in performance tests.
Be aware that Microsoft SQ1 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 9 7900 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Microsoft SQ1 and Ryzen 9 7900, 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.
