Ryzen 7 7840U vs Xeon W-11955M
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 7840U outperforms Xeon W-11955M by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 506 | 427 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 48.31 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Tiger Lake | AMD Phoenix (Zen 4, Ryzen 7040) |
| Power efficiency | 38.42 | 53.17 |
| Architecture codename | Tiger Lake-H (2021) | Phoenix-U (Zen 4) (2023) |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (3 years ago) | May 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $623 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 8 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm SuperFin | 4 nm |
| Die size | 190 mm2 | 178 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 25,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1787 | FP8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 28 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| SIPP | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| SGX | - | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR5-5600 |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® UHD Graphics for 11th Gen Intel® Processors | AMD Radeon 780M |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.45 GHz | no data |
| Execution Units | 32 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 4 | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | 4096x2304@60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over eDP | 4096x2304@60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | 7680x4320@60Hz | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 20 |
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
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.
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.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
Blender(-)
Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core
7-Zip Single
7-Zip
WebXPRT 3
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.21 | 15.73 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 28 Watt |
Ryzen 7 7840U has a 10.7% higher aggregate performance score, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 7 7840U is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W-11955M in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon W-11955M is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 7 7840U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W-11955M and Ryzen 7 7840U, 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.
