Xeon E5-2650 v3 vs Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS outperforms Xeon E5-2650 v3 by a whopping 127% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon E5-2650 v3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 381 | 970 |
| 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 | 45.53 | 6.69 |
| Architecture codename | Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) | Haswell-EP (2014−2015) |
| Release date | 13 June 2023 (1 year ago) | 8 September 2014 (10 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon E5-2650 v3 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) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.1 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 9.6 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 512 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB | 25 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 178 mm2 | 356 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 79 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon E5-2650 v3 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 | FCLGA2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 105 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon E5-2650 v3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 46 Bit |
Security technologies
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon E5-2650 v3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon E5-2650 v3 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon E5-2650 v3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 768 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 68 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon 780M | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon E5-2650 v3.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 40 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.84 | 7.42 |
| Recency | 13 June 2023 | 8 September 2014 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 10 |
| Threads | 16 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 105 Watt |
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS has a 127% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 450% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
Xeon E5-2650 v3, on the other hand, has 25% more physical cores and 25% more threads.
The Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2650 v3 in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS is a notebook processor while Xeon E5-2650 v3 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS and Xeon E5-2650 v3, 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.
