Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS vs EPYC 7532

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7532
2020
32 cores / 64 threads, 200 Watt
34.30
+88.4%
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
18.21

EPYC 7532 outperforms Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7532 and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking98307
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation38.48no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
SeriesAMD EPYCAMD Phoenix (Zen 4, Ryzen 7040)
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2019−2020)Phoenix-HS (Zen 4)
Release date19 February 2020 (4 years ago)13 June 2023 (1 year ago)
Current price$800 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7532 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 cores32 (Dotriaconta-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads6416
Base clock speed2.4 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz5.2 GHz
L1 cache2 MB512 KB
L2 cache16 MB8 MB
L3 cache256 MB16 MB
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data178 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7532 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.

SocketSocket SP3FP7/FP8
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7532 and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+no data
AVX+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7532 and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7532 and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200no data
Maximum memory size4 TiBno data
Max memory channels8no data
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+no 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 7532 34.30
+88.4%
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 18.21

EPYC 7532 outperforms Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS by 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

EPYC 7532 53051
+88.3%
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 28170

EPYC 7532 outperforms Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS by 88% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

EPYC 7532 1130
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 2299
+103%

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS outperforms EPYC 7532 by 103% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

EPYC 7532 9243
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 11039
+19.4%

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS outperforms EPYC 7532 by 19% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.30 18.21
Recency 19 February 2020 13 June 2023
Physical cores 32 8
Threads 64 16
Chip lithography 7 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 35 Watt

The EPYC 7532 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7532 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7532 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 7532
EPYC 7532
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.


4.3 18 votes

Rate EPYC 7532 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 37 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 7532 or Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.