
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
Popular choices:

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 8W instead of 180W, a 172W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on FP7/FP8 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 780M, while Ryzen Threadripper 1950X needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
2017Why buy it
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (9,000 vs 10,348).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $999 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌2150% higher power demand at 180W vs 8W.
- ❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS moves to FP7/FP8 and DDR5.
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
2023Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
2017Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 8W instead of 180W, a 172W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on FP7/FP8 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 780M, while Ryzen Threadripper 1950X needs a discrete GPU.
Why buy it
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (9,000 vs 10,348).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $999 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌2150% higher power demand at 180W vs 8W.
- ❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS moves to FP7/FP8 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS better than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 269 FPS | 198 FPS |
| medium | 243 FPS | 172 FPS |
| high | 204 FPS | 141 FPS |
| ultra | 176 FPS | 110 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 236 FPS | 155 FPS |
| medium | 193 FPS | 129 FPS |
| high | 157 FPS | 103 FPS |
| ultra | 139 FPS | 80 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 164 FPS | 69 FPS |
| medium | 136 FPS | 61 FPS |
| high | 105 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 37 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 513 FPS | 407 FPS |
| medium | 421 FPS | 365 FPS |
| high | 363 FPS | 311 FPS |
| ultra | 323 FPS | 259 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 448 FPS | 348 FPS |
| medium | 388 FPS | 318 FPS |
| high | 334 FPS | 272 FPS |
| ultra | 285 FPS | 224 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 295 FPS | 224 FPS |
| medium | 267 FPS | 204 FPS |
| high | 253 FPS | 185 FPS |
| ultra | 217 FPS | 150 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 683 FPS | 687 FPS |
| medium | 683 FPS | 687 FPS |
| high | 647 FPS | 687 FPS |
| ultra | 546 FPS | 687 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 683 FPS | 687 FPS |
| medium | 637 FPS | 687 FPS |
| high | 541 FPS | 656 FPS |
| ultra | 464 FPS | 584 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 541 FPS | 519 FPS |
| medium | 473 FPS | 428 FPS |
| high | 419 FPS | 383 FPS |
| ultra | 355 FPS | 321 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 683 FPS | 687 FPS |
| medium | 683 FPS | 687 FPS |
| high | 683 FPS | 687 FPS |
| ultra | 683 FPS | 640 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 683 FPS | 687 FPS |
| medium | 683 FPS | 687 FPS |
| high | 660 FPS | 611 FPS |
| ultra | 573 FPS | 510 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 572 FPS | 578 FPS |
| medium | 511 FPS | 517 FPS |
| high | 457 FPS | 458 FPS |
| ultra | 394 FPS | 382 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X


Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
The Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP7/FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 MB + 16 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 27,318 points. Launch price was $299.


Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 27,487 points. Launch price was $999.
Processing Power
The Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS versus 4 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X — a 26.1% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS (base: 4 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS uses the Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS scores 27,318 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X's 27,487 — a 0.6% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,605 vs 1,040, a 85.9% lead for the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 10,348 vs 9,000 (13.9% advantage for the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS). L3 cache: 16 MB on the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X.
| Feature | Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 16 | 16 / 32+100% |
| Boost Clock | 5.2 GHz+30% | 4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 4 GHz+18% | 3.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 16 MB | 32 MB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+1500% | 512K (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm-71% | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| PassMark | 27,318 | 27,487 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,000 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,605+150% | 1,040 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 10,348+15% | 9,000 |
Memory & Platform
The Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS uses the FP7/FP8 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS versus DDR4-2666 on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X — the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950X). PCIe lanes: 20 (Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS) vs 64 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950X) — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS) and X399 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950X).
| Feature | Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FP7/FP8 | SP3r2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-5600+25% | DDR4-2666 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 64 GB | 256 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 4+100% |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 64+220% |
Advanced Features
Only the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: Yes (Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS) vs AMD-V (Ryzen Threadripper 1950X). The Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS includes integrated graphics (Radeon 780M), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Ryzen Threadripper 1950X targets Workstation.
| Feature | Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Radeon 780M | — |
| Unlocked | — | Yes |
| AVX-512 | Yes | No |
| Virtualization | Yes | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Workstation |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












