AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen 7 8700G Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear, one-sided picture: the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G wins all 15 recorded head-to-head tests against the AMD Ryzen 5 240. There are no benchmark results where the Ryzen 5 240 takes the lead, which makes the performance hierarchy straightforward to interpret.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the multicore results show the largest gaps. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ryzen 7 8700G scores 17,128 versus 13,013 for the Ryzen 5 240, a delta of -24% from the perspective of the smaller chip. The Cinebench R15 multicore test tells a similar story: 2,693 for the 8700G against 2,078 for the 240, a -22.8% difference. These multicore deltas are substantial and reflect the core-count advantage held by the 8700G.

Single-core performance is much closer, though the 8700G still wins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 8700G posts 1,817 versus 1,742 for the 240, a modest -4.1% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 286 versus 270, a -5.6% delta. The PassMark single-thread test records 3,928 for the 8700G and 3,675 for the 240, a -6.4% difference. These results indicate that while the 8700G has a higher boost clock, the architectural efficiency of both chips is similar, and the single-thread advantage is real but not overwhelming.

The PassMark workload tests amplify the multicore gap. The largest single delta appears in PassMark physics, where the 8700G scores 1,647 against 1,060 for the 240, a -35.6% difference. This is the biggest proportional win for the 8700G in the entire dataset, suggesting that physics simulation workloads benefit disproportionately from the additional cores and threads.

Other PassMark tests show consistent 29-32% gaps in favor of the 8700G. Integer math: 103,107 versus 73,189, a -29% delta. Floating point math: 63,815 versus 45,301, also -29%. Data compression: 386,811 versus 267,963, a -30.7% gap. Data encryption: 22,842 versus 15,849, a -30.6% gap. Extended instructions: 29,067 versus 20,201, a -30.5% gap. Random string sorting: 46,025 versus 32,385, a -29.6% gap. Find prime numbers: 103 versus 70, a -32% gap.

The PassMark multithread score shows a -28.5% delta, with the 8700G at 31,690 and the 240 at 22,658. This broad consistency across very different workloads (encryption, compression, math, sorting) indicates that the 8700G's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a general throughput advantage stemming from its larger thread count and slightly higher boost clock.

For context, the Ryzen 5 240 sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 33,542. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H (delta 0%), the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (-0.4%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX (-0.4%). The Ryzen 7 8700G, by contrast, is at the 83rd percentile with an average score of 33,089, placing it near the Intel Core i7-13650HX and AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX (both delta 0%). Despite the 8700G winning every head-to-head test against the 240, its overall percentile ranking is actually one point lower, which reflects the broader CPU landscape where the 240 competes in a slightly different performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700G wins every multicore test. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 17,128 versus 13,013 for the Ryzen 5 240, a -24% delta. The PassMark multithread test shows 31,690 versus 22,658, a -28.5% gap.

Q: How close is single-core performance?

A: The 8700G wins all single-thread tests, but the margins are much smaller. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is -4.1% (1,817 versus 1,742). PassMark single-thread shows -6.4% (3,928 versus 3,675). The 8700G's 5.10 GHz boost clock versus 5.00 GHz on the 240 provides a narrow edge.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark physics, where the 8700G leads by -35.6% (1,647 versus 1,060). This is the most extreme difference in the dataset, exceeding the ~29-32% gaps seen in most other multi-threaded workloads.

Q: Are there any tests where the Ryzen 5 240 wins?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows 15 wins for the Ryzen 7 8700G and 0 wins for the Ryzen 5 240. Every benchmark, from Cinebench to PassMark workloads, favors the 8700G.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 has an average score of 33,542, roughly on par with the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H (delta 0%) and slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (-0.4%). The Ryzen 7 8700G averages 33,089, matching the Intel Core i7-13650HX (delta 0%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX (delta 0%).

Q: Does the 8700G's integrated graphics differ from the 240's?

A: Yes. The Ryzen 7 8700G uses the Radeon 780M, while the Ryzen 5 240 uses the Radeon 760M. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the performance difference is not quantified here, but the model numbers differ.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 7 8700G is the clear victor in every measured category. Its multicore advantage is substantial, ranging from -22.8% in Cinebench R15 multicore to -35.6% in PassMark physics. For workloads that scale with thread count, such as video rendering, 3D modeling, data compression, and scientific computing, the 8700G offers a meaningful throughput advantage. The PassMark data compression score of 386,811 versus 267,963 represents a 30.7% improvement, which would translate to noticeably faster archiving and file-handling operations.

The 8700G also wins in single-threaded tasks, though by a narrower margin. The -4.1% to -6.4% deltas in single-core tests suggest that everyday responsiveness, light office work, and older games that rely on single-thread performance will be slightly better on the 8700G, but the difference is not transformative.

The Ryzen 5 240, despite losing all 15 head-to-head tests, is not without its own positioning. Its average benchmark score of 33,542 is actually higher than the 8700G's 33,089, and it sits at the 84th percentile versus the 83rd for the 8700G. This counterintuitive result stems from the fact that the 240 competes in a field of mobile processors where its performance is relatively strong. The 240's 45 W TDP, versus 65 W for the 8700G, makes it more suited to thermally constrained environments, even though the database does not include power consumption benchmarks.

For users building a desktop system where power draw is less critical, the 8700G is the superior choice across all recorded metrics. For users in the mobile segment, the 240 offers competitive performance within its class, as indicated by its near-parity with the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H and AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS. The choice between these two chips ultimately depends on the platform: the 8700G for socketed desktop builds, the 240 for FP8 mobile designs.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Ryzen 7 8700G has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are close: 4.20 GHz for the 8700G versus 4.30 GHz for the 240. Boost clocks favor the 8700G at 5.10 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP is notably different: 65 W for the 8700G versus 45 W for the 240.

The socket and market segment are entirely different. The 8700G uses AMD Socket AM5 and is classified as Desktop, while the 240 uses AMD Socket FP8 and is classified as Mobile. The 8700G is part of the 8000 series with the codename Phoenix, while the 240 uses the Hawk Point codename. The 8700G has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the 240 does not. The integrated graphics differ: Radeon 780M on the 8700G versus Radeon 760M on the 240.

Memory bandwidth also differs: the 8700G supports 83.2 GB/s, while the 240 supports 89.6 GB/s. This is notable because the 240, despite having fewer cores, has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth figure. The release dates are separated by roughly one year: the 8700G launched on 2024-01-07, the 240 on 2025-01-05. The 8700G has a launch MSRP of $329; no launch MSRP is recorded for the 240. Part numbers are 100-000001236 for the 8700G and 100-000001727 for the 240.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Zen 4 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process node, with 25,000 million transistors and a die size of 178 mm². The cache hierarchy is identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and both use DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. Both support PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

The fundamental architectural difference lies in the core count: 8 cores and 16 threads on the 8700G versus 6 cores and 12 threads on the 240. This directly explains the multicore benchmark deltas, as the 8700G has 33% more cores and 33% more threads. The boost clock advantage (5.10 GHz versus 5.00 GHz) contributes to the single-core wins.

The codenames differ (Phoenix for the 8700G, Hawk Point for the 240), which reflects the different market positioning despite the shared Zen 4 core design. The 8700G is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier, while the 240 is a mobile part without multiplier unlocking. The integrated graphics differ as well, with the 8700G carrying the Radeon 780M and the 240 carrying the Radeon 760M, though the database does not include iGPU benchmark results.

The foundry, process node, transistor count, and die size are identical, indicating that both chips are cut from the same silicon generation. The 240's higher memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s) is an interesting divergence, as it suggests the mobile chip may have a different memory controller configuration or support for faster DDR5 modules, even though the database does not specify exact memory speeds.