Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS vs Ryzen 5 1400

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1400
2017
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
4.97
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS
2022
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
14.56
+193%

Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS outperforms Ryzen 5 1400 by a whopping 193% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1233505
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.53no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5no data
Power efficiency7.1038.64
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Rembrandt-HS (Zen 3+) (2022)
Release date16 March 2017 (7 years ago)19 April 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$169no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 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)
Threads816
Base clock speed3.2 GHz3.3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz4.9 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier32no data
L1 cache384 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache2 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache8 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm6 nm
Die size213 mm2208 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data95 °C
Number of transistors4800 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketAM4FP7
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTPRO, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR5
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-AMD Radeon 680M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes2020

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 4.97
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 14.56
+193%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 7753
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 22697
+193%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 965
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 1894
+96.3%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 3136
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 8673
+177%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 4205
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 6266
+49%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 17557
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 36583
+108%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 7.8
+7.7%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 8.4

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Ryzen 5 1400 8
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 22
+184%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Ryzen 5 1400 688
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 1913
+178%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Ryzen 5 1400 134
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 239
+78.7%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Ryzen 5 1400 1.53
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 2.82
+84.3%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Ryzen 5 1400 4.1
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 11.7
+185%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Ryzen 5 1400 43
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 103
+140%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Ryzen 5 1400 147
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 222
+51.1%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Ryzen 5 1400 2758
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 5970
+116%

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 5 1400 3038
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 7664
+152%

Blender(-)

Ryzen 5 1400 682
+158%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 264

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 5 1400 831
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 1549
+86.4%

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 5 1400 3370
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 5516
+63.7%

7-Zip

Ryzen 5 1400 19219
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 49474
+157%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.97 14.56
Recency 16 March 2017 19 April 2022
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 8 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS has a 193% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 1400 in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 1400 is a desktop processor while Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, 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 Ryzen 5 1400
Ryzen 5 1400
AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS

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.


4 747 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 1400 or Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.