Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS vs Ryzen 7 8700G

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 7 8700G
2024
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
20.41
+40.2%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS
2022
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
14.56

Ryzen 7 8700G outperforms Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking278505
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation44.72no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Power efficiency29.1638.64
Architecture codenamePhoenix (2023−2024)Rembrandt-HS (Zen 3+) (2022)
Release date8 January 2024 (less than a year ago)19 April 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 7 8700G 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads1616
Base clock speed4.2 GHz3.3 GHz
Boost clock speed5.1 GHz4.9 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography4 nm6 nm
Die size178 mm2208 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data95 °C
Number of transistors25,000 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data+
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 7 8700G 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 configuration11
SocketAM5FP7
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataPRO, 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 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon 780MAMD Radeon 680M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS.

PCIe version4.04.0
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 7 8700G 20.41
+40.2%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 14.56

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 7 8700G 31811
+40.2%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 22697

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 7 8700G 2683
+41.7%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 1894

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 7 8700G 13909
+60.4%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 8673

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 7 8700G 7759
+23.8%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 6266

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 7 8700G 50560
+38.2%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 36583

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 7 8700G 2.54
+231%
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 7 8700G 31
+41%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 22

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Ryzen 7 8700G 2693
+40.8%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 1913

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 7 8700G 286
+19.7%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 239

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 7 8700G 3.4
+20.6%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 2.82

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 7 8700G 14.8
+26.5%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 11.7

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 7 8700G 156
+51.2%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 103

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 7 8700G 331
+48.9%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 222

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 7 8700G 8593
+43.9%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 5970

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 7 8700G 12618
+64.6%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 7664

Blender(-)

Ryzen 7 8700G 186
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 264
+41.9%

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 7 8700G 2012
+29.9%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 1549

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 7 8700G 6665
+20.8%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 5516

7-Zip

Ryzen 7 8700G 75427
+52.5%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 49474

WebXPRT 3

Ryzen 7 8700G 336
+22.6%
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 274

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.41 14.56
Integrated graphics card 18.29 15.98
Recency 8 January 2024 19 April 2022
Chip lithography 4 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

Ryzen 7 8700G has a 40.2% higher aggregate performance score, 14.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 50% more advanced lithography process.

Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 8700G is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 7 8700G is a desktop processor while Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 8700G 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 7 8700G
Ryzen 7 8700G
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.


4.1 231 vote

Rate Ryzen 7 8700G 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 7 8700G or Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.