AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data set is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 wins every recorded benchmark against the AMD Ryzen 5 240. Across 15 head-to-head comparisons, the Ryzen AI 9 365 takes all 15, with no single test going the other way. The largest margin appears in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where the AI 9 365 scores 117 against the Ryzen 5 240’s 70, a 40.2% advantage. That test stresses pure integer throughput and branch-heavy loops, and the gap there is the widest of any workload in the database.

Cinebench results confirm a substantial multi-core lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen AI 9 365 scores 18698 versus 13013 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 30.4% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the same pattern: 2842 against 2078, a 26.9% gap. These are the two most commonly cited render workloads in the database, and both point to a decisive multi-threaded advantage for the 10-core part.

Single-core performance is closer but still favors the AI 9 365. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AI 9 365 posts 1992 versus 1742 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 12.6% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 303 versus 270, a 10.9% gap. The smallest margin anywhere is in PassMark single-thread, where the AI 9 365 scores 3841 versus 3675, a 4.3% difference. That narrow single-thread edge suggests the architectural improvements in the newer part are real but modest in lightly threaded tasks.

PassMark’s suite of specialized workloads reinforces the multi-core story. Integer math favors the AI 9 365 by 28.1% (101831 versus 73189), while floating point math is 27.9% ahead (62802 versus 45301). Data compression shows a 24.4% lead (354510 versus 267963), and data encryption is 13.4% ahead (18297 versus 15849). Extended instructions, which exercises SIMD and newer instruction sets, gives the AI 9 365 a 19.6% edge (25113 versus 20201). Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive workload, shows a 17.9% advantage (39447 versus 32385). Physics simulation, another heavily parallel test, is 37.8% ahead (1704 versus 1060).

The average benchmark score in the database places the Ryzen AI 9 365 at 40048, versus 33542 for the Ryzen 5 240. That 19.4% average gap is consistent with the individual test deltas, which mostly fall between 4% and 40%. The single-thread tests cluster at the low end of that range, while the most parallel workloads sit at the high end. The Ryzen AI 9 365 also sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the 84th percentile for the Ryzen 5 240, confirming that the newer part ranks higher globally, not just against this specific rival.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen AI 9 365 wins everywhere in the recorded data, but the nature of its wins varies by workload type. In heavily threaded tasks, the advantage is large and consistent. Cinebench R23 multi-core at 30.4% ahead, PassMark physics at 37.8% ahead, and integer math at 28.1% ahead all indicate that the 10-core, 20-thread configuration provides a substantial scaling benefit over the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 240. These are workloads where additional cores and threads translate directly into higher throughput.

In single-threaded tasks, the lead shrinks but remains positive. PassMark single-thread shows only a 4.3% edge, while Cinebench R23 single-core is 12.6% ahead. The Ryzen AI 9 365’s Zen 5 architecture and higher boost clock contribute to these gains, but the smaller deltas indicate that the per-core uplift is less dramatic than the raw core-count advantage. For users running mostly single-threaded applications, the AI 9 365 still wins, but the difference is less pronounced.

Mixed workloads, such as data compression and random string sorting, fall in between. Data compression is 24.4% ahead, while random string sorting is 17.9% ahead. These tasks use multiple cores but also depend on cache behavior and memory latency. The AI 9 365’s larger L1 cache (80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core) and same 16 MB L3 cache likely contribute to these mid-range wins. Encryption, which often scales with core count but also uses specialized instructions, shows a 13.4% edge, closer to the single-thread range than the multi-thread range.

The Ryzen 5 240 has no recorded wins. Its strengths, if any, would have to be inferred from characteristics not present in the benchmark data, such as a lower TDP of 45 watts versus 28 watts for the AI 9 365, though the database does not include power efficiency measurements. The only area where the Ryzen 5 240 shows a smaller deficit is single-threaded performance, where its 5.00 GHz boost clock matches the AI 9 365’s boost clock exactly, and its 4.30 GHz base clock is higher than the AI 9 365’s 2.00 GHz base. Those clock advantages are not enough to overcome the architectural gap in any test.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports one clear conclusion: the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 is the superior processor in every recorded workload. With 15 wins out of 15 head-to-head tests, an average score of 40048 versus 33542, and a higher percentile ranking (87th versus 84th), it outperforms the Ryzen 5 240 across the board. The most decisive advantages appear in multi-core and parallel workloads, where the 10-core, 20-thread configuration delivers leads of 24% to 40%. Even in single-threaded tests, where the gap narrows to as little as 4.3%, the AI 9 365 still comes out ahead.

Users who run rendering, simulation, data compression, or any heavily threaded application should choose the Ryzen AI 9 365. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18698 versus 13013, and the PassMark physics score of 1704 versus 1060, demonstrate that the extra cores provide real, measurable throughput gains. The AI 9 365 also leads in integer math (101831 versus 73189) and floating point math (62802 versus 45301), making it the stronger choice for computational workloads.

Users who prioritize single-threaded performance will still find the AI 9 365 ahead, but by a smaller margin. The PassMark single-thread score of 3841 versus 3675 (4.3% ahead) and the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1992 versus 1742 (12.6% ahead) indicate that the newer Zen 5 architecture delivers a modest per-core uplift. The Ryzen 5 240’s higher base clock of 4.30 GHz versus 2.00 GHz does not translate into a benchmark win, so there is no recorded scenario where the older part takes the lead.

For any application represented in the database, the Ryzen AI 9 365 is the recommended selection. The Ryzen 5 240 remains a functional mobile processor, but the data does not show any workload where it beats the AI 9 365. The verdict is straightforward: the AI 9 365 wins all 15 tests, with an average score advantage of approximately 19%, and its nearest rivals in the database, such as the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 (40081 average, 0.1% ahead) and the Intel Core i9-13905H (40313 average, 0.7% ahead), are all comparable or slightly faster than the AI 9 365, placing it in a higher performance tier than the Ryzen 5 240.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 wins all 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 5 240. The Ryzen 5 240 records zero wins.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen AI 9 365 scores 18698 versus 13013 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 30.4% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 26.9% gap (2842 versus 2078).

Q: Is the single-thread performance difference significant?

A: The Ryzen AI 9 365 leads by 4.3% in PassMark single-thread (3841 versus 3675) and by 12.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core (1992 versus 1742). The gap is smaller than in multi-core tests but still favors the AI 9 365.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen AI 9 365 has an average benchmark score of 40048, while the Ryzen 5 240 has an average of 33542. The AI 9 365 also ranks at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 84th percentile for the Ryzen 5 240.

Q: Which workloads show the largest and smallest gaps?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the AI 9 365 leads by 40.2% (117 versus 70). The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread, where the AI 9 365 leads by 4.3% (3841 versus 3675).

Architecture Differences

The two processors use different core architectures and underlying designs. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Hawk Point, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 uses Zen 5 with the codename Strix Point. The generation field confirms this split: the Ryzen 5 240 is listed as Ryzen 5 (Zen 4, Hawk Point), while the AI 9 365 is listed as Ryzen AI 300 (Zen 5 / Zen 5c). This means the AI 9 365 combines Zen 5 cores with Zen 5c cores, a heterogeneous design, whereas the Ryzen 5 240 uses uniform Zen 4 cores.

Both processors are manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC, but they differ in die size. The Ryzen 5 240 has a die size of 178 mm², while the AI 9 365 has a larger die at 233 mm². The transistor count is listed as 25,000 million for the Ryzen 5 240, while the AI 9 365 does not have a recorded transistor count in the database. The larger die and newer architecture for the AI 9 365 are consistent with its higher core count.

Cache configurations differ in the L1 and L2 levels. The Ryzen 5 240 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The AI 9 365 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. Both processors share 16 MB of L3 cache, and neither supports 3D V-Cache. The larger per-core L1 cache in the AI 9 365 may contribute to its single-threaded performance advantage.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ryzen 5 240 uses the Radeon 760M, while the AI 9 365 uses the Radeon 880M. Both are integrated graphics solutions for mobile platforms, but the database does not include graphics benchmarks, so no performance comparison is possible from the recorded data.

Memory support also differs. The Ryzen 5 240 supports DDR5 only, while the AI 9 365 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and neither supports ECC memory. The PCIe configuration differs: the Ryzen 5 240 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the AI 9 365 provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Power characteristics differ, with the Ryzen 5 240 rated at 45 watts TDP and the AI 9 365 rated at 28 watts TDP. The database does not include efficiency measurements, but the lower TDP of the AI 9 365, combined with its higher benchmark scores, suggests it delivers more performance per watt. Both processors use the AMD Socket FP8, are unlocked for overclocking, and are classified as mobile market segments with active production status.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The core count is 6 for the Ryzen 5 240 versus 10 for the AI 9 365, and the thread count is 12 versus 20. The base clock is 4.30 GHz for the Ryzen 5 240 versus 2.00 GHz for the AI 9 365, while the boost clock is identical at 5.00 GHz for both. The TDP is 45 watts for the Ryzen 5 240 versus 28 watts for the AI 9 365.

The architecture is Zen 4 for the Ryzen 5 240 versus Zen 5 for the AI 9 365. The process node is 4 nm for both, but the die size is 178 mm² for the Ryzen 5 240 versus 233 mm² for the AI 9 365. The transistor count is 25,000 million for the Ryzen 5 240, while the AI 9 365 has no recorded transistor count.

Cache differs in L1 size: 64 KB per core for the Ryzen 5 240 versus 80 KB per core for the AI 9 365. L2 cache is 1 MB per core for both, and L3 cache is 16 MB shared for both. Memory support is DDR5 for the Ryzen 5 240 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the AI 9 365. The integrated graphics are Radeon 760M for the Ryzen 5 240 versus Radeon 880M for the AI 9 365.

The PCIe configuration is Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only) for the Ryzen 5 240 versus Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only) for the AI 9 365. The release date is 2025-01-05 for the Ryzen 5 240 versus 2024-06-30 for the AI 9 365. The part numbers are 100-000001727 for the Ryzen 5 240 and 100-000001530 for the AI 9 365. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP, and both use the same AMD Socket FP8, are unlocked for overclocking, and are in active production.