AMD Ryzen 3 3250U vs Intel Core i7-940 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U and Intel Core i7-940 represent two very different eras of processor design, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear split: the modern AMD mobile chip dominates in single-threaded workloads, while the older Intel desktop flagship retains a significant advantage in multi-threaded rendering tasks. This comparison highlights how generational improvements in instruction-level efficiency can offset raw core count advantages, and how legacy processors can still hold their own in specific throughput-oriented scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a distinct picture of workload suitability. The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U claims victory in two of the three head-to-head tests, with its most dramatic win coming in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 776 against the Intel Core i7-940's 370. That is a 109.7% advantage, meaning the AMD chip delivers more than double the single-threaded performance. This makes the Ryzen 3 3250U the clear choice for everyday responsiveness, lightly-threaded applications, and tasks that rely on a single powerful core, such as legacy software, web browsing, and office productivity.

The AMD processor also wins the Cinebench R15 multi-core test with a score of 353 versus 264 for the Intel chip, a 33.7% margin. This is notable because the Intel i7-940 has twice the cores and threads, yet the AMD part's newer architecture and higher boost clock (3.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz) allow it to outperform the older chip in this particular workload. For users running older software that scales poorly beyond a few threads, the Ryzen 3 3250U offers superior performance.

The Intel Core i7-940 takes the remaining head-to-head win in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 2626 against the AMD's 2010, a 23.5% advantage. This is where the Intel chip's 4 cores and 8 threads flex their muscle. Modern multi-threaded workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering, and compilation that can utilize all available cores will favor the Intel part. Despite its age, the sheer core count and 8 MB of shared L3 cache allow it to outpace the dual-core AMD in heavily parallel tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors is vast. The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U is built on the Zen architecture (codename Dali) using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 3,500 million transistors into a 148 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Core i7-940 uses the Nehalem architecture (codename Bloomfield) on Intel's 45 nm process, with only 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The newer, denser process node grants the AMD chip significant efficiency and thermal advantages.

The core configurations differ fundamentally. The AMD part has 2 physical cores and 4 threads, while the Intel part has 4 physical cores and 8 threads. AMD's cache hierarchy uses 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 4 MB L3 pool. Intel's design uses 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but doubles the shared L3 to 8 MB. The larger shared cache on the Intel chip helps mitigate its older architecture's higher latency when feeding multiple cores.

Clock speeds and power envelopes highlight the design philosophy difference. The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U runs at a base of 2.60 GHz and boosts to 3.50 GHz, all within a 15 W TDP. The Intel Core i7-940 runs at a base of 2.93 GHz and boosts to 3.20 GHz, but consumes 130 W. That is over eight times the power draw for a chip that only wins one of three benchmarks. The AMD part is clearly designed for mobile efficiency, while the Intel chip is a desktop processor from an era when power consumption was a lesser concern.

Platform support and integrated features also set them apart. The AMD chip uses AMD Socket FP5, supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and includes Radeon Vega 3 integrated graphics. The Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1366, supports DDR3 in triple-channel configuration, and has no integrated graphics whatsoever. The AMD part also features PCIe Gen 3, while the Intel chip is limited to Gen 2. The Ryzen 3 3250U remains in active production, whereas the Core i7-940 is end-of-life.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the choice depends entirely on workload priorities. For anyone building a modern, power-efficient system for everyday tasks, the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U is the superior processor. Its 109.7% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 33.7% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core demonstrate that it handles the vast majority of common software with greater speed. The 15 W TDP, active production status, and integrated graphics make it a practical, versatile solution for laptops and compact desktops.

The Intel Core i7-940 only makes sense for a very specific use case: heavily multi-threaded workloads that can saturate all 8 threads. Its 23.5% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core shows it can still be productive for rendering or batch processing. However, this comes at the cost of 130 W power consumption, a dead platform, and no integrated graphics. The data supports choosing the Intel chip only if your primary application is modern multi-core rendering and power efficiency is irrelevant.

Benchmark percentiles place both processors at the 24th percentile versus all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical (908 for AMD, 903 for Intel). This indicates that on average, they perform at the same level, but the distribution of those scores is extremely different. The AMD chip skews toward single-thread efficiency, while the Intel chip skews toward raw multi-thread throughput. The Ryzen 3 3250U is the better all-around recommendation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U scores 776 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 109.7% higher than the Intel Core i7-940's score of 370. This makes the AMD chip more than twice as fast in single-threaded tasks.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-940 outperform the AMD chip in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i7-940 wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test with a score of 2626, which is 23.5% higher than the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U's score of 2010.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Core i7-940 has a TDP of 130 W. The Intel chip consumes significantly more power.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i7-940 supports DDR3 memory in a triple-channel configuration, with no bandwidth figure listed.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U includes Radeon Vega 3 integrated graphics, while the Intel Core i7-940 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Core i7-940 has 4 cores and 8 threads, giving it double the physical cores and threads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the Cinebench R23 single-core test. The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U scores 776, while the Intel Core i7-940 scores 370. The 109.7% delta shows a generational leap in single-thread execution efficiency. This massive gap is likely due to the AMD chip's newer Zen architecture, higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz, and more advanced 14 nm process node, which allows for better instruction-level parallelism and lower latency.

In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U wins with 353 points against the Intel's 264, a 33.7% margin. This is surprising given the Intel chip's 4-core/8-thread advantage, but the AMD part's 3.50 GHz boost clock and modern architecture overcome the core deficit in this older benchmark. The Intel chip's 2.93 GHz base clock and 3.20 GHz boost are simply not enough to compensate for its architectural age.

The Intel Core i7-940's sole victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 2626 versus the AMD's 2010. This 23.5% win demonstrates that when a workload scales well across many threads, the Intel chip's 8 threads and 8 MB shared L3 cache provide a tangible advantage. The AMD chip's dual-core design becomes the bottleneck, and its 4 MB L3 cache cannot feed the workload as effectively.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 3 3250U | Intel Core i7-940 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.93 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 130 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP5 | Intel Socket 1366 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 45 nm |

| Transistors | 3,500 million | 731 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 263 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | Not listed |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Vega 3 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2020-01-05 | 2008-11-16 |

The specification table reveals the complete reversal in design priorities. The AMD chip is smaller, newer, more power-efficient, and more feature-rich, while the Intel chip relies on raw core count and a larger L3 cache. The 14 nm versus 45 nm process gap explains the transistor density difference, and the AMD part's active production status versus Intel's end-of-life status confirms that this is a modern part versus a legacy one. The absence of integrated graphics and the 130 W TDP on the Intel chip make it unsuitable for most modern applications, while the AMD chip's 15 W TDP and on-board Vega 3 graphics make it a complete mobile solution.