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 9 7940HS review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£410PassMark multi-core score:29907N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.2 GHzCPU socket:FP8TDP (Thermal design power):?

AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 89% of models
Score components

40%

8.1

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

▲Better than 89% of processors
8.0

Value for money

Value for money
8.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 86% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

▲Better than 86%
8.1

Technical score

Technical score
8.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 87% of models
Score components

60%

8.3

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

8.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 87%
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 78% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
3 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, 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.
▲Better 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-9-7940hs
amd-ryzen-9-7940hs
Where to buy
    N/A~ £410
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 9 7940HS

Based on 3 · 3

Reviewers agree the integrated graphics are the highlight, with no notable complaints raised.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS

Technical score
Technical score
8.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 87% of models
Score components:

60%

8.3

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

8.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

8.1
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
8.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 86% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

8.0
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, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEED
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
5.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.2 GHz which is higher than that of 88.9% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x4 GHz which is higher than that of 86.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
29,907
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 29,907 in PassMark, which is higher than 85.7% of processors.
Show more
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/LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR DDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% 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)
?
Base power (PL1)
?
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

AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.61x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (29,907 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    29,907 vs 11,469
  • 2.37x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,348 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,348 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
  • 50.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,858 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,858 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 18.2% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 59.1% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,442 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,442 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 78% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    3 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, 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
  • 9.5% better value for money
    AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS has better value for money than the average processor (7.98 vs 7.3).
    7.98 vs 7.29
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    April 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • 2.61x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (29,907 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    29,907 vs 11,469
  • 2.37x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,348 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,348 vs 5,209
  • 50.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,858 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,858 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 18.2% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 59.1% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,442 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,442 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x4 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
  • 12 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (40 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    40 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
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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
  • 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 64% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS is more expensive than the average processor (£410 vs £250).
    £410 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
  • 64% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS is more expensive than the average processor (£410 vs £250).
    £410 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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

8.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
04/08/2023
Hands-on review · gaming FPS, power and temperature tests
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS is a strong choice for high-performance mini PCs, but its cooling and power draw need work.
9.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
20/05/2023
Hands-on review · iGPU gaming benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS offers strong integrated graphics for gaming in mini PCs, though some games need lower settings.
8.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
24/04/2023
Hands-on review · 10 AAA game tests on integrated graphics
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS has the strongest integrated graphics so far, handling most 1080p games well, though drivers are still beta.
8.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
19/04/2023
Hands-on review · iGPU gaming benchmarks and overclocking tests
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS has among the most powerful integrated graphics tested, but gains over previous chips are modest while drivers remain in beta.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.3
notebookcheck.net
✓ explicit
21/07/2023
Benchmark review · Mini PC
Verdict
The Minisforum Venus UM790 Pro is a compact mini PC whose AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS leads its rivals in multi-core and rendering benchmarks.
9.0
lesnumeriques.com
≈ estimated
25/06/2023
Lab test · Laptop processor
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS is a laptop chip that is about 10% faster than its predecessor while using far less power, which suits thin, powerful laptops.
9.2
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
20/06/2023
Full review · Gaming laptop
Verdict
The Razer Blade 14 suits gamers who want a thin, bright 240Hz screen, but it runs hot and lasts under five hours on office work.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS

  • Excellent multi-core performance for demanding tasks like video editing and 3D rendering
  • Industry-leading integrated graphics (Radeon 780M) capable of 1080p gaming on low/medium settings
  • High power efficiency due to the 4nm Zen 4 architecture, leading to impressive battery life
  • Strong single-core responsiveness for everyday productivity and web browsing
  • Supports modern standards like DDR5 memory, USB4, and PCIe 4.0
  • Includes dedicated Ryzen AI hardware for accelerating compatible AI workloads

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS

  • Susceptible to thermal throttling in compact chassis without robust cooling solutions
  • Laptops equipped with this flagship processor often command a high price premium
  • Limited performance gains over the slightly more affordable Ryzen 7 7840HS for some users
  • Significant performance drops can occur when running on battery power compared to being plugged in
  • Higher idle power consumption compared to some competing Intel or Apple silicon chips

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS is a high-end mobile processor built on the Zen 4 architecture and a 4nm TSMC process, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads with a 4.0 GHz base clock and a 5.2 GHz boost frequency. Its main strengths include exceptional power efficiency for its performance class, a configurable TDP of 35W to 54W, and the integrated Radeon 780M RDNA 3 graphics, which is capable of 1080p gaming on low-to-medium settings. Furthermore, it introduces a dedicated XDNA AI engine for accelerated artificial intelligence workloads. However, potential drawbacks include high operating temperatures that can reach 100°C under sustained heavy loads, a lack of an unlocked multiplier for manual overclocking, and slightly higher idle power consumption compared to some competing Intel mobile chips.

Compare AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS 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 9 7940HS and other processors

No results found