Ryzen 7 8840U vs Ryzen 5 2600

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 2600
2018
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
8.62
Ryzen 7 8840U
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 28 Watt
15.59
+80.9%

Ryzen 7 8840U outperforms Ryzen 5 2600 by an impressive 81% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 8840U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking901465
Place by popularity22not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.99no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5no data
Power efficiency12.0950.77
Architecture codenamePinnacle Riege (Zen+) (2018)Hawk Point-U (Zen 4) (2023)
Release date13 April 2018 (6 years ago)6 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 8840U 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads1216
Base clock speed3.4 GHz3.3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz5.1 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier34no data
L1 cache576 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache3 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography12 nm4 nm
Die size213 mm2178 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °C100 °C
Number of transistors4800 Million25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 8840U 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
SocketAM4FP8
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt28 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 8840U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SMERyzen AI, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX512, FMA3, MMX (+), SHA, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, SSSE3
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
Precision Boost 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 8840U are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 8840U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR5
Maximum memory size128 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-AMD Radeon 780M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 8840U.

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 2600 8.62
Ryzen 7 8840U 15.59
+80.9%

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 2600 13189
Ryzen 7 8840U 23857
+80.9%

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 2600 1163
Ryzen 7 8840U 2227
+91.5%

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 2600 4896
Ryzen 7 8840U 9411
+92.2%

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 2600 4726
Ryzen 7 8840U 7381
+56.2%

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 2600 28173
Ryzen 7 8840U 41306
+46.6%

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Ryzen 5 2600 9290
Ryzen 7 8840U 14245
+53.3%

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 2600 5.5
Ryzen 7 8840U 3.28
+67.7%

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 2600 14
Ryzen 7 8840U 24
+75.5%

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 2600 1248
Ryzen 7 8840U 1782
+42.7%

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 2600 157
Ryzen 7 8840U 266
+68.8%

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 2600 1.76
Ryzen 7 8840U 3.22
+83%

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 2600 7.5
Ryzen 7 8840U 11.5
+53.3%

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 2600 75
Ryzen 7 8840U 119
+58.2%

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 2600 205
Ryzen 7 8840U 267
+30.1%

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 5 2600 6070
Ryzen 7 8840U 9258
+52.5%

Blender(-)

Ryzen 5 2600 375
+32.5%
Ryzen 7 8840U 283

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 5 2600 1119
Ryzen 7 8840U 1879
+68%

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 5 2600 4020
Ryzen 7 8840U 5921
+47.3%

7-Zip

Ryzen 5 2600 30898
Ryzen 7 8840U 50223
+62.5%

WebXPRT 3

Ryzen 5 2600 179
Ryzen 7 8840U 302
+68.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.62 15.59
Recency 13 April 2018 6 December 2023
Physical cores 6 8
Threads 12 16
Chip lithography 12 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 28 Watt

Ryzen 7 8840U has a 80.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, a 200% more advanced lithography process, and 132.1% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 8840U is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 2600 in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 2600 is a desktop processor while Ryzen 7 8840U is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 8840U, 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 2600
Ryzen 5 2600
AMD Ryzen 7 8840U
Ryzen 7 8840U

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.


3.3 14866 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 2600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 158 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 8840U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 2600 or Ryzen 7 8840U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.