OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£880PassMark multi-core score:28426N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.1 GHzCPU socket:FP7TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS
7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 88% of models
Score components

40%

8.0

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 88% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

5.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
8.0

Technical score

Technical score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 86% of models
Score components

60%

8.2

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 86%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 78% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 78%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-ryzen-7-7840hs
amd-ryzen-7-7840hs
Where to buy
    N/A~ £880
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS

Based on 2 · 5

Strong CPU performance and good cooling are praised, while opinions on gaming performance are split.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS

Technical score
Technical score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 86% of models
Score components:

60%

8.2

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

8.0
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

5.9

Price

7.2
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FP7
This processor uses the FP7 CPU socket, which is older than that of 50.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.1 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.1 GHz which is higher than that of 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.8 GHz which is higher than that of 84% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
28,426
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 28,426 in PassMark, which is higher than 84.6% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.7% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 7.8% of processors.
L3 cache
16 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
L2 cache
8 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 72% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
L1 cache
512 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 512 KB which is larger than that of 62.8% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
7,500 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 7,500 MHz, which is higher than that of 92.2% of processors and equal to 3.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-7500 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-7500 MHz, which is higher than that of 93.1% of processors and equal to 3.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 780M
This processor uses the Radeon 780M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 95.2% of processors and equal to that in 1.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.4% of processors and equal to that of 8.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 90.8% of processors and equal to 3.4% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 35-54 W
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.48x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (28,426 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    28,426 vs 11,469
  • 2.28x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,881 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,881 vs 5,209
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Phoenix vs Kaby Lake).
    Phoenix vs Kaby Lake
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 45.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,726 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,726 vs 2,558
  • 15.9% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 53.2% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,351 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,351 vs 1,535
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 78% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    January 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA vs AES, SHA
  • 2.48x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (28,426 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    28,426 vs 11,469
  • 2.28x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,881 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,881 vs 5,209
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 45.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,726 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,726 vs 2,558
  • 15.9% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 53.2% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,351 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,351 vs 1,535
  • 43.9% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (705 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    705 vs 490
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 10 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (38 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    38 vs 28
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Phoenix vs Kaby Lake).
    Phoenix vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    4 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    8 MB vs 3 MB
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 5.05x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (25 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    25 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 77.8% larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    16 MB vs 9 MB
  • 33.3% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (512 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    512 KB vs 384 KB
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.34x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 91% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-7500 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-7500 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 780M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 780M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 3.52x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS is more expensive than the average processor (£880 vs £250).
    £880 vs £250
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24
  • 3.52x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS is more expensive than the average processor (£880 vs £250).
    £880 vs £250
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 24

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Wicked GPU Gamer
≈ estimated
28/06/2024
Hands-on review · gaming tests and build quality
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS is a strong contender for mini PC gaming, with only the plastic build disappointing.
8.0
Taki Udon
≈ estimated
11/06/2023
Hands-on review · gaming, emulation and overclock tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS is quiet, with strong emulation and overclocking headroom, a good pick if noise matters to you.
9.0
Watt Performance
≈ estimated
19/09/2023
Comparison review · Cinebench performance and battery tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS offers big performance and efficiency gains, though battery life and idle power lag behind.
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.6
notebookcheck.net
✓ explicit
07/07/2023
Lab benchmarks · Mini PC
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS in the Beelink GTR7 roughly doubles last year's GTR6 in AIDA64 ray tracing, but encodes 4K video more slowly.
8.5
notebookcheck.biz
✓ explicit
27/05/2024
Benchmark test · Mini PC
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS tops the AIDA64 rating in the Bosgame M1 mini PC, though it trails some rivals at PDF conversion.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS

  • High power efficiency during intensive tasks, significantly outperforming previous generations like the 6800HS at lower wattages.
  • Excellent multi-core performance for productivity, 3D modeling, and parallel workloads thanks to 8 cores and 16 threads.
  • Features the Radeon 780M integrated graphics, widely considered the best-in-class iGPU for 1080p gaming and media decoding/encoding (AV1, HEVC).
  • Stays relatively cool and quiet under load in most configurations, especially in well-optimized mini PCs and thin-and-light gaming laptops.
  • Provides a balanced performance-to-price ratio compared to higher-end chips like the Ryzen 9 7940HS with only minimal performance trade-offs.
  • Strong support for modern standards including DDR5 memory (up to 5600 MT/s) and PCIe Gen 4.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS

  • High idle and near-idle power consumption, which can lead to reduced battery life during light tasks like video playback.
  • Locked multiplier prevents traditional overclocking, limiting performance tuning for enthusiast users.
  • Integrated graphics performance is limited to 1080p at low-to-medium settings for demanding AAA titles; not suitable for 1440p or 4K gaming without a dGPU.
  • Real-world performance can be heavily dependent on the laptop manufacturer's specific cooling solution and BIOS power limit configurations.
  • Some users report occasional stuttering or optimization issues in specific software/games, often attributed to early driver versions or Windows power settings.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS is a high-performance laptop processor from the Phoenix family, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 4 architecture with a TSMC 4nm process. It operates at a base clock of 3.8 GHz with a maximum boost frequency of up to 5.1 GHz and includes a 16MB L3 cache. Its standout feature is the integrated Radeon 780M graphics based on RDNA 3, which offers 12 compute units and clock speeds up to 2,700 MHz, making it highly capable for 1080p gaming and multimedia tasks. Main pros include exceptional power-to-performance efficiency, support for modern technologies like Ryzen AI for local acceleration, and a configurable TDP typically ranging from 35W to 54W. However, users have reported relatively high idle power consumption that can impact battery life during light tasks, and since the chip is soldered into systems, it is not user-replaceable or overclockable.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS and other processors

No results found