AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen 5 3501U Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture: the AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins every single head-to-head test in the database, 11 wins to 0. Its average benchmark score of 33542 places it at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U sits at 14320 and the 69th percentile. The Ryzen 5 240 sits in a performance tier alongside the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (-0.4%), and AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX (-0.4%), while the Ryzen 5 3501U is grouped with AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 (-0.1%), AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.3%), and Intel Core 7 160UL (0.6%).

The Ryzen 5 240 is the obvious choice for any workload where the data shows measurable performance matters: multi-threaded rendering, encryption, compression, or floating-point math. The Ryzen 5 3501U offers no benchmark advantage in any recorded test. Its only distinctions are a lower 15 W TDP and a smaller physical footprint in the database's power envelope, but the data does not show any performance scenario where that translates into a win.

For users constrained by thermal limits or battery capacity, the Ryzen 5 3501U may still be operationally relevant, but the data does not support selecting it on performance grounds alone. The Ryzen 5 240 delivers a higher percentile rank, a higher average score, and a clean sweep of every shared benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 records an average benchmark score of 33542, which is more than double the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U's 14320.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the Ryzen 5 240 scores 3675 against 2136 for the Ryzen 5 3501U, a delta of 72.1%.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 3501U win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The database records 11 head-to-head benchmarks, and the Ryzen 5 240 wins all 11. The Ryzen 5 3501U has zero wins.

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

A: The Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the difference in process node?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Ryzen 5 3501U uses a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Q: Which CPU has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and manufacturing approaches. The Ryzen 5 240 is based on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Hawk Point, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It uses 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Ryzen 5 3501U is based on Zen+ architecture with the codename Picasso, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It uses 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die.

The Ryzen 5 240 features a newer socket (AMD Socket FP8) compared to the Ryzen 5 3501U's AMD Socket FP5. Memory support differs: the Ryzen 5 240 supports DDR5, while the Ryzen 5 3501U supports DDR4. PCIe generation also differs, with the Ryzen 5 240 offering Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 3 on the Ryzen 5 3501U.

Cache organization shows a generational shift. The Ryzen 5 240 uses 64 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core, with 16 MB shared L3. The Ryzen 5 3501U uses 96 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core, with 4 MB shared L3. The larger L1 per core on the older chip does not compensate for the smaller L2 and L3 capacities in the recorded benchmarks.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the Ryzen 5 240 includes a Radeon 760M, while the Ryzen 5 3501U includes a Radeon Vega 8. Both are marked as mobile market segment parts, and both are currently in active production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The core specifications diverge sharply. The Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 4.30 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads, a base clock of 2.10 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The TDP rating is 45 W for the Ryzen 5 240 and 15 W for the Ryzen 5 3501U.

Memory bandwidth reflects the platform difference: the Ryzen 5 240 lists 89.6 GB/s, while the Ryzen 5 3501U lists 38.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Neither supports ECC memory.

The Ryzen 5 240 has a part number of 100-000001727 and a release date of 2025-01-05. The Ryzen 5 3501U has a part number of YM3501C4T4MFG and a release date of 2026-05-31. Neither processor has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Ryzen 5 3501U is identified as part of the 3000 series, while the Ryzen 5 240 has no series designation. The generation labels in the database read "Ryzen 5 (Zen 4 (Hawk Point))" for the 240 and "Ryzen 5 (Zen+ (Picasso))" for the 3501U.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin comes in the PassMark extended instructions test, where the Ryzen 5 240 scores 20201 against 3274 for the Ryzen 5 3501U, a delta of 517%. This indicates a massive advantage in workloads that use advanced instruction sets such as AVX or similar extensions.

Floating-point math shows the Ryzen 5 240 at 45301 versus 12707, a 256.5% delta. Prime number finding results are 70 versus 21, a 233.3% delta. Multi-threaded performance in PassMark multithread shows 22658 versus 7071, a 220.4% delta. Random string sorting records 32385 versus 10414, a 211% delta. Data compression shows 267963 versus 87380, a 206.7% delta.

Data encryption results are 15849 versus 5580, a 184% delta. Integer math scores are 73189 versus 26321, a 178.1% delta. Physics calculations record 1060 versus 483, a 119.5% delta. The smallest margin is in single-threaded performance: 3675 versus 2136, a 72.1% delta. The PassMark singlethread test repeats the same numbers, confirming the single-thread result.

Cinebench results are available only for the Ryzen 5 240 in the database: Cinebench R15 multicore at 2078, R15 singlecore at 270, R23 multicore at 13013, and R23 singlecore at 1742. No corresponding Cinebench scores are recorded for the Ryzen 5 3501U, so a direct comparison in that suite is not possible from the data.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 5 240 wins in every category where both processors have recorded benchmark data. Its largest advantages are in extended instructions and floating-point math, which suggests strong performance in scientific computing, engineering simulations, and media encoding tasks that leverage SIMD instructions. The multi-threaded wins indicate that heavily parallel workloads such as video rendering, compilation, and data processing will run substantially faster on the Ryzen 5 240.

The compression and encryption results point to advantages in file archiving, database operations, and secure communication workloads. The integer math and physics results support use cases in gaming physics simulation and general productivity applications. The single-thread advantage means even lightly threaded applications, such as web browsing or office document editing, will show a measurable performance lead.

The Ryzen 5 3501U has no recorded wins. Its only differentiating factor in the data is the 15 W TDP, which is one-third of the Ryzen 5 240's 45 W rating. This suggests the Ryzen 5 3501U is designed for power-constrained environments where sustained low power consumption outweighs raw performance. The data does not show any benchmark where this power advantage translates into a performance win, but for fanless designs or battery-first systems, the lower power envelope remains a valid selection criterion.

The percentile data reinforces the split: the Ryzen 5 240 sits at the 84th percentile against all CPUs, while the Ryzen 5 3501U sits at the 69th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ryzen 5 240 are all newer or higher-tier parts (Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS, AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX, Intel Core i5-12600HX), while the Ryzen 5 3501U's nearest rivals include embedded and low-power parts (AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546, AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, Intel Core 7 160UL, Intel Core i5-10400F). The delta percentages are small within each peer group, indicating that both processors are well-positioned relative to their direct competitors.