Ryzen 7 7840HS vs FX-9830P

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

FX-9830P
2016
4 cores / 4 threads
2.14
Ryzen 7 7840HS
2023
8 cores / 16 threads
18.76
+777%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 777% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary Details

Comparing FX-9830P and Ryzen 7 7840HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking1754276
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol Ridgeno data
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Phoenix-HS (Zen 4)
Release date1 June 2016 (7 years ago)January 2023 (1 year ago)
Current price$749 no data

Detailed Specifications

FX-9830P and Ryzen 7 7840HS 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads416
Base clock speed3 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz5.1 GHz
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache2 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm4 nm
Die size250 mm2178 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Number of transistors3100 Million25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on FX-9830P and Ryzen 7 7840HS 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 configurationno data1
Socketno dataFP8
Power consumption (TDP)25-45 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9830P and Ryzen 7 7840HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsDual-Channel DDR3/DDR4-1866 Memory Controller, PCIe 3.0 x8DDR5-5600/LPDDR5x-7500 RAM (incl. ECC), PCIe 4, Ryzen AI, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NIno data+
FMAno data+
AVXno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-9830P and Ryzen 7 7840HS are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9830P and Ryzen 7 7840HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR5, DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)AMD Radeon 780M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9830P and Ryzen 7 7840HS.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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.

FX-9830P 2.14
Ryzen 7 7840HS 18.76
+777%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 777% based on our aggregated 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%

FX-9830P 3306
Ryzen 7 7840HS 29021
+778%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 778% 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%

FX-9830P 609
Ryzen 7 7840HS 2389
+292%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 292% 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%

FX-9830P 1526
Ryzen 7 7840HS 11235
+636%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 636% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

FX-9830P 3033
Ryzen 7 7840HS 7709
+154%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 154% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

FX-9830P 9822
Ryzen 7 7840HS 50264
+412%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 412% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

FX-9830P 10.27
Ryzen 7 7840HS 2.63
+290%

FX-9830P outperforms Ryzen 7 7840HS by 290% in wPrime 32.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

FX-9830P 4
Ryzen 7 7840HS 30
+731%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 731% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Benchmark coverage: 15%

FX-9830P 301
Ryzen 7 7840HS 2581
+757%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 757% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

FX-9830P 93
Ryzen 7 7840HS 279
+200%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 200% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

FX-9830P 1.1
Ryzen 7 7840HS 3.33
+203%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 203% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-9830P 2
Ryzen 7 7840HS 14.9
+645%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-9830P by 645% in TrueCrypt AES.

Gaming performance

Pros & Cons Summary


Performance score 2.14 18.76
Integrated graphics card 1.95 18.36
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 4 16
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 35 Watt

The Ryzen 7 7840HS is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9830P in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9830P and Ryzen 7 7840HS, 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 FX-9830P
FX-9830P
AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS
Ryzen 7 7840HS

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.


3.6 108 votes

Rate FX-9830P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 1110 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 7840HS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & Сomments

Here you can ask a question about FX-9830P or Ryzen 7 7840HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.