AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has an average benchmark score of 33,542, while the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D has an average score of 33,079. The Ryzen 5 240 sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen 7 7800X3D sits in the 83rd percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Ryzen 7 7800X3D wins in PassMark single-thread testing with a score of 3,759 versus 3,675 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 2.2% advantage. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ryzen 5 240 leads with 1,742 against 1,713, a 1.7% margin.

Q: Which processor offers more L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D has 96 MB of shared L3 cache, six times the 16 MB shared L3 cache of the AMD Ryzen 5 240.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not.

Q: What is the difference in their TDP ratings?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D has a TDP of 120 watts.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each chip. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is a mobile processor on the FP8 socket, built for thin-and-light systems where power draw matters. Its 45-watt TDP, integrated Radeon 760M graphics, and 4 nm process node make it suited for portable devices that still need competent multi-threaded work. The Ryzen 5 240 wins only one head-to-head benchmark, Cinebench R23 single-core, but that win is narrow at 1.7%. Its overall average score of 33,542 is effectively tied with its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H at 33,537 and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS at 33,667.

The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a desktop part on the AM5 socket with a 120-watt TDP. It dominates the head-to-head comparison with 14 wins out of 15 benchmarks. The largest victory comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 78.4%. The 7800X3D is the choice for users who prioritize raw compute throughput, especially in multi-threaded workloads, data compression, encryption, and physics simulations. Its 96 MB of L3 cache and 8-core, 16-thread configuration give it a substantial edge in cache-heavy tasks. The launch MSRP of the 7800X3D is $449, a figure stated once for reference but not analyzed further.

Users building a new desktop build should pick the Ryzen 7 7800X3D unless they require a mobile form factor. The Ryzen 5 240 makes sense for a laptop or all-in-one system where 45-watt operation and the FP8 socket fit the chassis constraints. For anyone prioritizing multi-threaded performance, the 7800X3D is clearly ahead in nearly every metric.

The Ryzen 5 240 is not without merit. It matches the 7800X3D in single-thread PassMark within 2.2% and beats it in Cinebench R23 single-core by 1.7% despite having fewer cores and a lower TDP. That balance between efficiency and single-core speed is noteworthy for a 4 nm mobile chip. The 7800X3D's performance per watt is not measured in the database, but its raw performance is consistently higher across almost all tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clear pattern: the Ryzen 7 7800X3D wins 14 of 15 tests outright. The biggest margins are in PassMark find prime numbers, where the 7800X3D scores 324 versus 70 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 78.4% difference. PassMark physics shows a 69.9% gap, with the 7800X3D at 3,522 versus 1,060. PassMark multithread has the 7800X3D at 34,293 versus 22,658, a 33.9% lead. PassMark data compression favors the 7800X3D by 30.3%, with 384,669 versus 267,963. PassMark extended instructions shows a 30.7% advantage for the 7800X3D, 29,166 versus 20,201. PassMark integer math has the 7800X3D at 103,639 versus 73,189, a 29.4% gap. PassMark data encryption shows a 29.1% lead for the 7800X3D, 22,346 versus 15,849. PassMark random string sorting favors the 7800X3D by 28.7%, 45,418 versus 32,385. PassMark floating point math has the 7800X3D at 61,187 versus 45,301, a 26% difference. Cinebench R15 multicore shows the 7800X3D at 2,878.5 versus 2,078, a 27.8% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore has the 7800X3D at 16,817 versus 13,013, a 22.6% advantage. The 7800X3D also wins in Cinebench R15 single-core with 281.5 versus 270, a 4.1% margin, and in PassMark single-thread with 3,759 versus 3,675, a 2.2% edge.

The sole win for the Ryzen 5 240 is Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 1,742 against 1,713, a 1.7% difference. This result indicates that the mobile chip's single-core clock boost can occasionally outpace the desktop part despite the 7800X3D having a 2.2% advantage in PassMark single-thread. The two processors share the same 5.00 GHz boost clock, so the R23 result likely reflects subtle architectural or thermal differences in the measured run.

The scale of the 7800X3D's victories is broad. Across PassMark tests, the median delta is around 29% in favor of the 7800X3D, with the extremes being the 78.4% outlier in prime number finding and the 2.2% single-thread margin. the 7800X3D's 8-core configuration and larger L3 cache directly translate into substantial gains in multi-threaded and cache-sensitive workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every physical and platform-level specification. The Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 7800X3D has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ: the Ryzen 5 240 runs at 4.30 GHz and the 7800X3D at 4.20 GHz, though both boost to 5.00 GHz. TDPs are far apart at 45 watts versus 120 watts. Sockets are incompatible: the Ryzen 5 240 uses AMD Socket FP8 and the 7800X3D uses AMD Socket AM5. The process nodes differ: the Ryzen 5 240 is built on 4 nm TSMC, while the 7800X3D uses 5 nm TSMC. Transistor counts are also different: the Ryzen 5 240 has 25,000 million transistors with a die size of 178 mm², and the 7800X3D has 11,270 million transistors with a die size of 71 mm². L3 cache differs significantly: the Ryzen 5 240 has 16 MB shared L3, and the 7800X3D has 96 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth varies: the Ryzen 5 240 offers 89.6 GB/s dual-channel DDR5, and the 7800X3D offers 83.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR5. ECC support exists only on the 7800X3D. PCIe generations differ: the Ryzen 5 240 has PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), and the 7800X3D has PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only. Integrated graphics differ: the Ryzen 5 240 has Radeon 760M and the 7800X3D has Radeon Graphics. Market segments differ: the Ryzen 5 240 is Mobile, the 7800X3D is Desktop. Release dates are distinct: the Ryzen 5 240 released on 2025-01-05, and the 7800X3D released on 2023-01-03. The Ryzen 5 240 belongs to the Ryzen 5 (Zen 4 (Hawk Point)), and the 7800X3D belongs to the Ryzen 7 (Zen 4 (Raphael.

Architecture Differences

The Ryzen 5 240 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D share the Zen 4 architecture but diverge in implementation. The Ryzen 5 240 is codenamed Hawk Point, built on a 4 nm TSMC node with 25,000 million transistors and a die size of 178 mm². The 7800X3D is codenamed Raphael, fabricated on 5 nm TSMC with 11,270 million transistors and a die size of 71 mm². The cache hierarchy is identical per core: 64 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core, but the shared L3 differs: the Ryzen 5 240 has 16 MB shared L3, and the 7800X3D has 96 MB shared L3. The 7800X3D's larger L3 is its defining feature, providing six times the L3 capacity of the Ryzen 5 240. The Ryzen 5 240 compensates with a more advanced 4 nm node and more transistors, which likely contributes to its lower 45-watt TDP despite having a higher base clock than the 7800X3D. The integrated graphics differ between the chips: the Ryzen 5 240 features Radeon 760M integrated graphics, while the 7800X3D uses Radeon Graphics. The memory bandwidth favors the Ryzen 5 240 at 89.6 GB/s, against 83.2 GB/s for the 7800X3D.

The 7800X3D is a desktop chip on Socket AM5 with 8 cores and 16 threads, with a 5 nm node and a TDP of 120 watts. It supports ECC memory and PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes, features absent from the Ryzen 5 240. The Ryzen 5 240's FP8 socket and 45-watt design target mobile devices, pairing a Zen 4 with a 4 nm process node and 16 MB L3, and lacks ECC support, and PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes instead.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 7 7800X3D wins in almost every measurable benchmark category. For multi-threaded workloads, it leads by 33.9% in PassMark multithread, 27.8% in Cinebench R15 multicore, and 22.6% in Cinebench R23 multicore. Data compression and encryption tasks strongly favor the 7800X3D, with 30.3% and 29.1% leads respectively. Extended instructions show a 30.7% advantage, integer math a 29.4% lead, and floating-point math a 26% edge. The 7800X3D also wins in physics simulations by 69.9% and in prime number finding by 78.4%. Random string sorting favors it by 28.7%. Even in single-threaded tests, the 7800X3D wins in PassMark single-thread by 2.2% and in Cinebench R15 single-core by 4.1%. The 7800X3D is the clear choice for any compute-intensive task, particularly those leveraging large caches or many threads.

The Ryzen 5 240 wins in exactly one head-to-head test: Cinebench R23 single-core, where it edges out the 7800X3D by 1.7% (1,742 versus 1,713). This result suggests that the Ryzen 5 240 can match or slightly exceed the 7800X3D in lightly threaded workloads that rely on single-core clock speed, especially given its higher base clock of 4.30 GHz versus 4.20 GHz and identical 5.00 GHz boost clock. The Ryzen 5 240 also carries a significantly lower 45-watt TDP, making it the better fit for power-constrained environments such as laptops or compact systems. Its 4 nm process and 25,000 million transistors indicate a more dense implementation, though the database does not measure power efficiency directly. For users on a mobile platform with an FP8 socket, the Ryzen 5 240 is the only choice among these two.