AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins 15 of the 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS. No single test in the database favors the 7533HS. The margin varies widely by workload, from a nominal 0% tie in Cinebench R23 single-core to an 83.3% lead in PassMark random string sorting.

The most dramatic separation occurs in PassMark extended instructions, where the Ryzen 5 240 scores 20,201 versus 11,219 for the 7533HS, a 80.1% advantage. This test targets advanced instruction set usage, and the Hawk Point part's newer architecture shows a substantial edge. Random string sorting follows closely at 83.3% (32,385 versus 17,669), indicating a major difference in memory handling and pointer-chasing workloads.

Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 67.2% lead (2,078 versus 1,243), while R15 single-core is 54.3% ahead (270 versus 175). The R23 multicore gap narrows considerably to 5.4% (13,013 versus 12,342), suggesting that the longer R23 workload allows the 7533HS to close part of the gap, though it still loses. R23 single-core is a perfect tie at 1,742 for both processors, the only benchmark where the two match exactly.

PassMark multithread favors the Ryzen 5 240 by 56% (22,658 versus 14,520). Data compression shows a 58.8% lead (267,963 versus 168,692), data encryption 47.9% (15,849 versus 10,718), and floating point math 63% (45,301 versus 27,800). Integer math is 44.1% ahead (73,189 versus 50,800), and prime number finding is 45.8% ahead (70 versus 48). Physics simulation shows the smallest PassMark gap at 29.1% (1,060 versus 821), while single-thread PassMark is 34.1% higher (3,675 versus 2,740).

The average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy: the Ryzen 5 240 posts 33,542 against 19,364 for the 7533HS. The Ryzen 5 240 sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the 7533HS rests at the 73rd percentile. The nearest rivals for the 240 are the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H (33,537, 0% delta), AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (33,667, -0.4%), AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX (33,668, -0.4%), and Intel Core i5-12600HX (33,375, 0.5%). The 7533HS competes with the Intel Core Ultra 5 226V (19,368, 0%), Intel Core i5-1345U (19,411, -0.2%), Intel Core i7-8700K (19,238, 0.7%), and Intel Core i7-10700F (19,499, -0.7%). The two chips occupy different competitive tiers entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 5 240 wins every recorded workload category, so the use-case split is defined by the degree of advantage rather than by which chip takes a category.

For heavily multithreaded rendering and encoding tasks, the 240's lead is substantial but not uniform. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 67.2% gap, while R23 multicore shrinks to 5.4%. The PassMark multithread score of 22,658 versus 14,520 (56%) indicates that sustained parallel workloads generally favor the 240 by a wide margin, though the R23 result is a caveat: at longer durations, the 7533HS becomes more competitive.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the 240 leads by 54.3% in R15 single-core but ties exactly in R23 single-core at 1,742. PassMark single-thread is 34.1% higher (3,675 versus 2,740). The data suggests that short single-thread bursts strongly favor the 240, while a longer single-thread load can equalize.

For encryption and compression, the 240 leads by 47.9% and 58.8% respectively. These workloads benefit from the architecture's newer instruction handling and memory subsystem. Extended instructions show the largest gap at 80.1%, so any application that leverages SIMD or specialized instruction sets will see the biggest relative gain from choosing the 240.

For memory-intensive sorting and string manipulation, the 240 leads by 83.3% in random string sorting. Integer math (44.1%) and floating point math (63%) both favor the 240 strongly. Physics simulation has the smallest delta at 29.1%, meaning the 7533HS is least far behind in that specific workload.

The 7533HS has no winning category in the database. Its closest result is the R23 single-core tie, and its best relative showing outside that is the 5.4% R23 multicore gap. Any application that resembles Cinebench R23 multicore will be the least painful on the 7533HS, but it still loses.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share several fundamentals: both are AMD mobile parts with 6 cores, 12 threads, dual-channel DDR5 memory support, and PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. Both lack ECC memory support and both have locked multipliers. The similarities end there.

The Ryzen 5 240 uses the Zen 4 architecture on the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm TSMC process. The Ryzen 5 7533HS uses Zen 3+ on the Rembrandt-R codename, built on a 6 nm TSMC process. The process node difference is a full node generation, which contributes to the 240's higher clock envelope: base clock of 4.30 GHz versus 3.30 GHz, boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.40 GHz.

The 240 has a 45 W TDP, while the 7533HS has a 35 W TDP. This 10 W difference in thermal design power explains part of the performance gap, though the architecture change is the larger factor. The 240 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the 7533HS uses AMD Socket FP7. The die size differs: 178 mm² for the 240 versus 208 mm² for the 7533HS. The 240 lists 25,000 million transistors, while the 7533HS has no transistor count recorded in the database.

Cache configuration differs in L2 only. Both have 64 KB L1 per core and 16 MB shared L3. The 240 has 1 MB L2 per core, while the 7533HS has 512 KB L2 per core. That doubling of L2 per core is a meaningful advantage for workloads that cycle through moderate-sized data sets.

Memory bandwidth is higher on the 240: 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. Both support DDR5, but the 240's memory controller delivers a 16.7% bandwidth advantage, which shows up in the random string sorting and data compression results.

The integrated graphics differ. The 240 pairs with the Radeon 760M, while the 7533HS uses the Radeon 660M. The database records no graphics benchmarks, so the comparison is limited to the part names.

Release timing differs by roughly four months: the 240 launched on 2025-01-05, while the 7533HS launched on 2024-08-31. The 240 is the newer part. Both are listed as Active in production status. The 240's part number is 100-000001727; the 7533HS lists two part numbers, 100-000001632(FP7) and 100-000001634(FP7r2).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS boosts to 4.40 GHz.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Ryzen 5 7533HS wins?

A: No. The database records 15 head-to-head comparisons, and the Ryzen 5 240 wins all 15.

Q: How close is the Cinebench R23 multicore result?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 scores 13,013 and the 7533HS scores 12,342, a 5.4% difference. This is the narrowest multicore gap in the recorded data.

Q: Do both processors have the same L3 cache?

A: Yes, both have 16 MB shared L3. The L2 cache differs: 1 MB per core on the 240 versus 512 KB per core on the 7533HS.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, and the Ryzen 5 7533HS uses a 6 nm process from TSMC.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 has an average benchmark score of 33,542, and the Ryzen 5 7533HS has 19,364. The 240 sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, the 7533HS at the 73rd.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Ryzen 5 240 is the stronger processor in every measured category. Its 15-0 head-to-head record, 84th percentile standing, and 33,542 average benchmark score place it clearly above the 7533HS, which sits at the 73rd percentile with a 19,364 average.

The 240's wins are not marginal. Half of the head-to-head deltas exceed 50%, including extended instructions (80.1%), random string sorting (83.3%), R15 multicore (67.2%), floating point math (63%), data compression (58.8%), and PassMark multithread (56%). The 7533HS's best relative performance is the R23 single-core tie and the 5.4% R23 multicore gap, both of which still leave it behind.

The architecture gap is decisive. Zen 4 on 4 nm with a 10 W higher TDP, a 0.70 GHz higher base clock, a 0.60 GHz higher boost clock, double the L2 cache per core, and 12.8 GB/s more memory bandwidth explains the performance spread. The 7533HS is a 35 W part built on the older Zen 3+ core; it consumes less power and runs cooler by specification, but the benchmark data shows that power efficiency does not translate into competitive performance against the 240.

The only scenario the data supports for choosing the 7533HS is one where the 35 W TDP and FP7 socket compatibility are hard requirements. The 240 requires FP8 and a 45 W thermal envelope. For any workload measured in the database, the 240 delivers the higher score. The 7533HS ties only in R23 single-core and comes closest in R23 multicore, but those two results do not offset the 80.1% deficit in extended instructions or the 83.3% deficit in random string sorting.

The database comparison is unambiguous: the Ryzen 5 240 is the superior choice on performance metrics, and the 7533HS is the fallback only for systems constrained by socket or power limits.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 240 | AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS |

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

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 3+ |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Rembrandt-R |

| Process node | 4 nm | 6 nm |

| Base clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | AMD Socket FP7 |

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 760M | Radeon 660M |

| Die size | 178 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2024-08-31 |

| Part number | 100-000001727 | 100-000001632(FP7), 100-000001634(FP7r2) |

Shared specifications: 6 cores, 12 threads, 64 KB L1 per core, 16 MB shared L3, dual-channel DDR5, PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, no ECC memory, locked multiplier, mobile market segment, active production status.