Xeon 3.06 vs Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS outperforms Xeon 3.06 by a whopping 4997% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 534 | 3395 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD Phoenix (Zen 4, Ryzen 7040) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 18.45 | 0.13 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) | Gallatin (2003−2004) |
| Release date | 13 June 2023 (2 years ago) | March 2003 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon 3.06 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 5.1 GHz | 3.07 GHz |
| L1 cache | 512 KB | 16K |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 16 MB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 178 mm2 | 237 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 286 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon 3.06 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 | no data | 2 |
| Socket | FP7/FP8 | 604 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 97 Watt |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon 780M ( - 2700 MHz) | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.29 | 0.30 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 1 |
| Threads | 16 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 97 Watt |
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS has a 4996.7% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, a 3150% more advanced lithography process, and 177.1% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon 3.06 in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS is a notebook processor while Xeon 3.06 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
