Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Xeon E5-2620 v3 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 9 7940HS is 3062 days newer than Xeon E5-2620 v3.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS
- Performs up to 24% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Xeon E5-2620 v3 - 152 vs 123 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 - 16 vs 12 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Xeon E5-2620 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Ryzen 9 7940HS
Mobile • Jan 26th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-2620 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Single-Core
926
37.48987854251012%
Multi-Core
3996
34.37123688284879%
Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 8th, 2014 | Release Date | Jan 26th, 2023 |
| Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
| Haswell-E | Codename | Not Available |
| Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket FP8 |
Server | Segment | Mobile |
| 6 | Cores | 8 |
| 12 | Threads | 16 |
| 2.4 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
| 3.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
| 85 W | TDP | Not Available |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 4 nm |
| 24.0x | Multiplier | 40.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M |
| No | Overclockable | No |
