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 7940HX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,170PassMark multi-core score:53472N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:5.2 GHzCPU socket:FL1TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

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

7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 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 91% of models
Score components

40%

8.8

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

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 91% of processors
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 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
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

4.3

Price

▼Worse than 79%
8.8

Technical score

Technical score
8.8/ 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 98% of models
Score components

60%

9.3

Performance

18%

8.1

Architecture

10%

8.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

9.2

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

★Better than 98%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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~ £1,170
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX

Technical score
Technical score
8.8/ 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 98% of models
Score components:

60%

9.3

Performance

18%

8.1

Architecture

10%

8.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

9.2

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

8.8
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

4.3

Price

6.8
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
FL1
This processor uses the FL1 CPU socket, which is older than that of 63.2% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Chipset
X670E
This processor supports X670E chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 89.4% of processors.
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, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 90% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
32
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 32 CPU threads, which is more than 94.9% of processors and equal to 3.2% 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
16x 2.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 16x2.4 GHz which is higher than that of 90.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
53,472
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 53,472 in PassMark, which is higher than 96.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
5 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 5 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 83.5% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 5 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 5 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 83.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
L3 cache
64 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 64 MB which is larger than that of 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L2 cache
16 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
L1 cache
1,024 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,024 KB which is larger than that of 85.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% 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
5,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.6% of processors and equal to 6.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5200 MHz, which is higher than that of 71% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
5,200 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 94.7% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 610M
This processor uses the Radeon 610M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 88.9% of processors and equal to that in 1.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.5% of processors and equal to 4.5% 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
?
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% 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: 55-75 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.66x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (53,472 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    53,472 vs 11,469
  • 3.09x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (16,094 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    16,094 vs 5,209
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 12 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (16 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    16 vs 4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Dragon Range vs Kaby Lake).
    Dragon Range vs Kaby Lake
  • 24 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • 79.2% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,751 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,751 vs 1,535
  • 54.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,948 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,948 vs 2,558
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    January 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader 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, AMD-V 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, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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
  • 4.66x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (53,472 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    53,472 vs 11,469
  • 3.09x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (16,094 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    16,094 vs 5,209
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 12 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (16 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    16 vs 4
  • 24 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • 79.2% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,751 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,751 vs 1,535
  • 54.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,948 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,948 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (16x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    16x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 43.5% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (703 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    703 vs 490
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Dragon Range vs Kaby Lake).
    Dragon Range vs Kaby Lake
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    16 MB vs 3 MB
  • 7.11x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (64 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    64 MB vs 9 MB
  • 2.16x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (4 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    4 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 58.3% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (5 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    5 nm vs 12 nm
  • 2.67x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,024 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,024 KB vs 384 KB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 5 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 5 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 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
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 77.4% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (83.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    83.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 62.5% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 610M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 610M 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
  • 49.2% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (264 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    264 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 4.68x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is more expensive than the average processor (£1,170 vs £250).
    £1,170 vs £250
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24
  • 6.8% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has worse value for money than the average processor (6.82 vs 7.3).
    6.82 vs 7.29
  • 22.2% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 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
  • 22.2% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 4.68x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is more expensive than the average processor (£1,170 vs £250).
    £1,170 vs £250
  • 6.8% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has worse value for money than the average processor (6.82 vs 7.3).
    6.82 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • 49.2% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (264 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    264 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24
  • 22.2% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 22.2% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

Overview video
Overview video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX

  • Exceptional multi-core performance for heavy workloads like video editing, streaming, and rendering
  • High efficiency under load compared to Intel counterparts, delivering massive power at lower wattage in specific tasks
  • Excellent for high-end gaming when paired with a strong dedicated GPU
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for easy overclocking to gain additional performance
  • Massive 64MB L3 cache significantly improves system responsiveness and frame rate stability

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

  • Poor battery life, typically lasting only 2–4 hours even with power-saving settings
  • High idle power draw due to its chiplet design, leading to rapid drain during light tasks
  • Runs very hot, frequently reaching 90–95°C and potentially causing thermal throttling in smaller laptop chassis
  • Marginally slower clock speeds (approx. 7%) compared to the flagship Ryzen 9 7945HX
  • Lack of integrated Ryzen AI hardware acceleration compared to the Ryzen 7040HS series

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is a high-end 'Dragon Range' mobile processor built on the Zen 4 architecture, featuring 16 cores and 32 threads with a 2.4 GHz base clock and a max boost of up to 5.2 GHz. Manufactured on a 5nm process, it boasts a massive 80 MB total cache (64 MB L3 + 16 MB L2) and supports modern standards like DDR5-5200 memory and 28 lanes of PCIe 5.0. Its main advantages include desktop-class multi-threaded performance for heavy content creation and competitive gaming, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and superior efficiency compared to similar Intel Raptor Lake-HX parts. However, users should note its high 55W–75W TDP often results in significant heat generation and demanding cooling requirements, while the integrated Radeon 610M graphics are relatively weak for a flagship chip and it lacks the dedicated Ryzen AI hardware found in the 'Phoenix' series.

Compare AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX 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 7940HX and other processors

No results found