Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS vs Ryzen 9 3900X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 275 | 350 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 21.75 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 9 | AMD Phoenix (Zen 4, Ryzen 7040) |
| Power efficiency | 15.55 | 48.00 |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) | Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) |
| Release date | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) | 13 June 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 9 3900X 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 cores | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.6 GHz | 5.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 512 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 64 MB | 16 MB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 178 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 19,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 9 3900X 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 configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | AM4 | FP7/FP8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 9 3900X 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 Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.196 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | AMD Radeon 780M ( - 2800 MHz) |
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
Blender(-)
Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core
7-Zip Single
7-Zip
WebXPRT 3
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.53 | 17.74 |
| Recency | 7 July 2019 | 13 June 2023 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 8 |
| Threads | 24 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 35 Watt |
Ryzen 9 3900X has a 15.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 9 3900X is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 9 3900X is a desktop processor while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS, 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.
