Ryzen 9 7840HX vs Xeon Phi 7210F
Primary details
Comparing Xeon Phi 7210F and Ryzen 9 7840HX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD Dragon Range (Zen 4, Ryzen 7045) |
| Architecture codename | Knights Landing (2016) | Dragon Range-HX (Zen 4) (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 17 January 2024 (less than a year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon Phi 7210F and Ryzen 9 7840HX 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 | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 256 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 32 KB (per core) | 768 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 12 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB (shared) | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 9900 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Phi 7210F and Ryzen 9 7840HX 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 | no data |
| Socket | 3647 | FL1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Phi 7210F and Ryzen 9 7840HX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 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-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon Phi 7210F and Ryzen 9 7840HX technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Phi 7210F and Ryzen 9 7840HX are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Phi 7210F and Ryzen 9 7840HX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon 610M |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 17 January 2024 |
| Physical cores | 64 | 12 |
| Threads | 256 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | 55 Watt |
Xeon Phi 7210F has 433.3% more physical cores and 966.7% more threads.
Ryzen 9 7840HX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 318.2% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon Phi 7210F and Ryzen 9 7840HX. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon Phi 7210F is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 9 7840HX is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Phi 7210F and Ryzen 9 7840HX, 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.
