Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS vs EPYC 7302P

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7302P
2019
16 cores / 32 threads, 155 Watt
20.57
+16.1%
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
17.72

EPYC 7302P outperforms Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7302P and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking267345
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.87no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
SeriesAMD EPYCAMD Phoenix (Zen 4, Ryzen 7040)
Power efficiency12.5647.91
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023)
Release date7 August 2019 (5 years ago)13 June 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$825no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7302P and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads3216
Base clock speed3 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz5.2 GHz
Multiplier30no data
L1 cache96K (per core)512 KB
L2 cache512K (per core)8 MB
L3 cache128 MB (shared)16 MB
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm4 nm
Die size192 mm2178 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors4,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7302P and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 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)no data
SocketTR4FP7/FP8
Power consumption (TDP)155 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7302P and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7302P and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7302P and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelno data
Maximum memory size4 TiBno data
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon 780M

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.

EPYC 7302P 20.57
+16.1%
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 17.72

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.

EPYC 7302P 32669
+16.1%
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 28144

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.

EPYC 7302P 1172
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 2295
+95.8%

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.

EPYC 7302P 7873
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 10816
+37.4%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.57 17.72
Recency 7 August 2019 13 June 2023
Physical cores 16 8
Threads 32 16
Chip lithography 7 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 155 Watt 35 Watt

EPYC 7302P has a 16.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 342.9% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 7302P is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7302P is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7302P and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS, 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 EPYC 7302P
EPYC 7302P
AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

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.


3.7 27 votes

Rate EPYC 7302P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 45 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7302P or Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.