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 7840U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£840PassMark multi-core score:24393N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.1 GHzCPU socket:FP8TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

AMD Ryzen 7 7840U 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.

7.4/10

Overall score

Score
7.4/ 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 75% of models
Score components

40%

7.2

Technical score

25%

7.9

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 75% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

6.1

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
7.2

Technical score

Technical score
7.2/ 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 70% of models
Score components

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

8.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 70%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 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 66% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 5 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 66%
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £840
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 7840U

Based on 1 · 5

Reviewers like the build quality and customisation, but criticise short battery life and driver and firmware issues, with performance views split.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 7 7840U

Technical score
Technical score
7.2/ 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 70% of models
Score components:

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

8.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

7.2
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

6.1

Price

7.0
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
FP8
This processor uses the FP8 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 49.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% 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 3.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.3 GHz which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
24,393
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 24,393 in PassMark, which is higher than 78.6% 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
800 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 800 MHz which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 94.7% of processors and equal to 1.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.9% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to that of 7% 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: 15-30 W
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 7 7840U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.13x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (24,393 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    24,393 vs 11,469
  • 2.03x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,584 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,584 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
  • 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
  • 38.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,537 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,537 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 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
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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 66% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 5 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    May 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
  • 2.13x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (24,393 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    24,393 vs 11,469
  • 2.03x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,584 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,584 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
  • 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
  • 38.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,537 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,537 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 47.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,264 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,264 vs 1,535
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.3 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
  • 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
  • 2.29x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (800 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 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
  • 37.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 74% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (728 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    728 vs 2,804.5
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 33.2% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (266 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    266 vs 398.015
  • 3.36x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 7840U is more expensive than the average processor (£840 vs £250).
    £840 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Shadow Stack, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Shadow Stack, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • 3.9% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 7 7840U has worse value for money than the average processor (7.01 vs 7.3).
    7.01 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • 3.36x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 7 7840U is more expensive than the average processor (£840 vs £250).
    £840 vs £250
  • 3.9% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 7 7840U has worse value for money than the average processor (7.01 vs 7.3).
    7.01 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Shadow Stack, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Shadow Stack, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • 74% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (728 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    728 vs 2,804.5
  • 33.2% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (266 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    266 vs 398.015
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 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

8.0
Digital Foundry
≈ estimated
03/09/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks and gameplay tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 7840U delivers impressive gaming performance at 20 watts, though haptics, battery and Windows issues hold it back.
8.0
Retro Tech Dad
≈ estimated
18/08/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks, battery and emulation tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 7840U is a solid, compact handheld with strong power, though immature drivers and tough rivals raise doubts.
9.0
PC Crazy
≈ estimated
24/06/2024
First look · unboxing, price check and early impressions
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 7840U is a strong handheld with good value, praised for its build and freedom on Windows.
Shop video
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
06/07/2023
Linux benchmark test · Laptop chip
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 7840U is fast under Linux, especially for AVX-512 workloads, but Radeon 780M graphics glitches and 16GB of non-upgradeable memory hold it back.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 7 7840U

  • Excellent multi-threaded performance, significantly outperforming previous generations and many Intel competitors.
  • Integrated Radeon 780M graphics provide solid entry-level 1080p gaming performance.
  • High power efficiency under load, offering a strong performance-per-watt ratio.
  • Native support for AVX-512 instructions, which provides a major boost for scientific and heavy workloads.
  • Superior Linux compatibility and performance compared to Intel hybrid architectures.
  • Includes dedicated Ryzen AI hardware for accelerating artificial intelligence tasks.

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

  • Reports of higher-than-expected idle power consumption in some laptop models, which can impact standby battery life.
  • Variable battery life results across different manufacturers, with some users reporting less endurance than expected.
  • Generates significant heat and fan noise when fully utilized or during intense gaming sessions.
  • Integrated graphics performance is highly dependent on system RAM speed and cooling solutions.
  • Limited availability in some regions compared to more common Intel-based alternatives.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 7840U is a high-performance, ultra-thin laptop processor based on the 'Phoenix' Zen 4 architecture and manufactured on a 4nm process. It features 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 3.3 GHz and a boost clock of up to 5.1 GHz, supported by 16MB of L3 cache and a configurable TDP of 15–30W. Main characteristics include the integrated Radeon 780M RDNA 3 graphics with 12 compute units and the inclusion of a dedicated Ryzen AI engine (XDNA) capable of up to 10 TOPS. Key pros include exceptional energy efficiency, strong multi-threaded performance that rivals some H-series chips, and class-leading integrated graphics suitable for 1080p gaming. Cons include high idle power consumption in some laptop implementations and the lack of overclocking support due to its soldered BGA design.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 7840U 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 7840U and other processors

No results found