Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS vs Xeon W-3275M

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon W-3275M
2019
28 cores / 56 threads, 205 Watt
25.02
+49.5%
Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS
2024
8 cores / 16 threads, 28 Watt
16.74

Xeon W-3275M outperforms Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon W-3275M and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking197387
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.02no data
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Wno data
Power efficiency11.5556.58
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Hawk Point (2024)
Release date3 June 2019 (5 years ago)16 April 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$7,453no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon W-3275M and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS 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 cores28 (Octacosa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads5616
Base clock speed2.5 GHz3.3 GHz
Boost clock speed4.6 GHz5.1 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier25no data
L1 cache1.75 MB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache28 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache38.5 MB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data178 mm2
Maximum core temperature76 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon W-3275M and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA3647FP7
Power consumption (TDP)205 Watt28 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W-3275M and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon W-3275M and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W-3275M and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W-3275M and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR5
Maximum memory size2 TBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon 780M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W-3275M and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes6420

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.

Xeon W-3275M 25.02
+49.5%
Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS 16.74

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.

Xeon W-3275M 39736
+49.4%
Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS 26591

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 25.02 16.74
Recency 3 June 2019 16 April 2024
Physical cores 28 8
Threads 56 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 205 Watt 28 Watt

Xeon W-3275M has a 49.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 250% more physical cores and 250% more threads.

Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 632.1% lower power consumption.

The Xeon W-3275M is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W-3275M and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS, 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.


Intel Xeon W-3275M
Xeon W-3275M
AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS
Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS

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 64 votes

Rate Xeon W-3275M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 11 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon W-3275M or Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.