AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 are both mobile processors from AMD, but they target different segments. The Ryzen 5 240 is a conventional mobile chip built on the Zen 4 architecture, while the Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is an embedded processor using a Zen 5 / Zen 5c hybrid design. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy between them, with the P164 winning every head-to-head benchmark in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison covers eleven Passmark workloads, and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins all eleven. The largest margin appears in floating point math, where the P164 scores 55799 against the Ryzen 5 240's 45301, a difference of 18.8%. This is a substantial gap, suggesting the P164's newer architecture handles floating point workloads with notably greater efficiency.

Data compression shows the second-largest margin. The P164 scores 327891 versus the Ryzen 5 240's 267963, a delta of 18.3%. This workload benefits from both core count and cache behavior, and the P164's eight cores versus six give it a structural advantage. Integer math follows closely behind, with the P164 at 87940 and the Ryzen 5 240 at 73189, a 16.8% lead. Extended instructions show a 16.5% gap, with scores of 24193 and 20201 respectively.

Multithread performance, which aggregates overall parallel capability, favors the P164 by 12.5%. The P164 scores 25889 while the Ryzen 5 240 scores 22658. Physics simulation shows a similar 12.4% margin, with scores of 1210 and 1060. These two results indicate that the P164 sustains its advantage across mixed workloads, not just in math-heavy tests.

Single-thread performance is closer but still favors the P164. The P164 scores 4029 in both single-thread tests, while the Ryzen 5 240 scores 3675, a delta of 8.8%. This is notable because the Ryzen 5 240 has a much higher base clock of 4.30 GHz compared to the P164's 2.00 GHz. The P164's Zen 5 architecture extracts more instructions per clock, overcoming the clock deficit. Both chips boost to 5.00 GHz, so the single-thread gap reflects architectural efficiency rather than raw frequency.

The remaining margins are smaller. Random string sorting shows a 6.9% lead for the P164, with scores of 34801 and 32385. Data encryption shows only a 1.3% gap, with scores of 16055 and 15849. Prime number finding is nearly identical, with the P164 at 71 and the Ryzen 5 240 at 70, a 1.4% difference. These smaller gaps suggest that some workloads are less sensitive to the architectural differences between Zen 4 and Zen 5.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their internal designs. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Hawk Point, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses a Zen 5 / Zen 5c hybrid architecture with the codename Gorgon Point, also built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its die size is larger at 233 mm², though the transistor count is not recorded in the database.

The core configurations differ. The Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads. This gives the P164 a 33% advantage in core count and thread count. The cache hierarchy also differs. The Ryzen 5 240 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The P164 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and only 8 MB of L3 cache. Despite having less L3 cache, the P164 still outperforms in cache-sensitive workloads like data compression, indicating that its newer cores are more efficient at using available cache.

Clock speeds show a stark contrast. The Ryzen 5 240 has a base clock of 4.30 GHz, while the P164 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz. Both share the same 5.00 GHz boost clock. The P164's lower base clock suggests it is designed for power-constrained environments. Its thermal design power is 28 watts, compared to the Ryzen 5 240's 45 watts. The P164 achieves higher benchmark scores despite drawing less power, which points to the efficiency of the Zen 5 cores.

Memory support differs as well. The Ryzen 5 240 supports DDR5 only, while the P164 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The P164 also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 5 240 does not. This makes the P164 more suitable for reliability-critical embedded applications.

The integrated graphics differ. The Ryzen 5 240 uses a Radeon 760M, while the P164 uses a Radeon 880M. The database does not record benchmark scores for these iGPUs, so no direct comparison is possible. PCIe support also differs: the Ryzen 5 240 provides 20 Gen 4 lanes on the CPU, while the P164 provides 16 Gen 4 lanes. The P164 uses the same AMD Socket FP8 as the Ryzen 5 240.

Release timing separates the two. The Ryzen 5 240 was released on January 5, 2025, while the P164 has a release date of March 8, 2026, over a year later. The P164's part number is recorded as unknown, while the Ryzen 5 240 has part number 100-000001727. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows that the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins every recorded workload. There is no test in the database where the AMD Ryzen 5 240 comes out ahead. This means the P164 is the stronger choice for all measured performance categories, from single-thread responsiveness to heavily multithreaded tasks.

The P164's largest advantages are in floating point math, data compression, and integer math, with deltas of 18.8%, 18.3%, and 16.8% respectively. These workloads benefit from the P164's eight cores and its Zen 5 architecture. For tasks like scientific computing, financial modeling, or data processing, the P164 is clearly superior.

The P164 also leads in single-thread performance by 8.8%. This matters for workloads that cannot parallelize easily, such as interactive applications or serial code paths. The P164's higher single-thread score of 4029 versus 3675 means it handles latency-sensitive tasks better, despite its much lower base clock.

The Ryzen 5 240 does not win any category, but its 45-watt TDP and high base clock of 4.30 GHz may suit scenarios where sustained frequency is preferred. The data does not record any workload where this translates to a benchmark win, however. The P164's 28-watt TDP and 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs versus the Ryzen 5 240's 84th percentile reinforce the P164's overall performance advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The base clock is 4.30 GHz for the Ryzen 5 240 and 2.00 GHz for the P164. Both share a 5.00 GHz boost clock. The thermal design power is 45 watts for the Ryzen 5 240 and 28 watts for the P164.

The architecture differs: Zen 4 for the Ryzen 5 240, Zen 5 / Zen 5c for the P164. The codenames are Hawk Point and Gorgon Point respectively. Both use a 4 nm TSMC process, but the die size is 178 mm² for the Ryzen 5 240 and 233 mm² for the P164. The transistor count is 25,000 million for the Ryzen 5 240, with no recorded figure for the P164.

Cache configurations differ. The Ryzen 5 240 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 16 MB of shared L3. The P164 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 8 MB of L3. Both have 1 MB of L2 per core. Memory support is DDR5 for the Ryzen 5 240, while the P164 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. ECC memory is supported only on the P164. PCIe lanes are 20 for the Ryzen 5 240 and 16 for the P164, both Gen 4.

The integrated graphics are Radeon 760M for the Ryzen 5 240 and Radeon 880M for the P164. The Ryzen 5 240 was released on January 5, 2025, while the P164 has a release date of March 8, 2026. The part number is 100-000001727 for the Ryzen 5 240 and unknown for the P164. The market segment is Mobile for both, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the base clock difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has a base clock of 4.30 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz. Both have a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a lower thermal design power?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has a TDP of 28 watts, compared to the AMD Ryzen 5 240's 45 watts.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not.

Q: What is the L3 cache size for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 MB of L3 cache.

Q: How do their benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 ranks in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 ranks in the 84th percentile.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 240 in every single recorded workload, with margins ranging from 1.3% in data encryption to 18.8% in floating point math. The P164's overall average benchmark score of 52901 is substantially higher than the Ryzen 5 240's 33542, and its 91st percentile ranking versus the 84th percentile confirms its position.

The P164 achieves this with a 28-watt TDP and a base clock of just 2.00 GHz, compared to the Ryzen 5 240's 45-watt TDP and 4.30 GHz base clock. This indicates that the Zen 5 architecture in the P164 is significantly more efficient than the Zen 4 architecture in the Ryzen 5 240, delivering more performance per watt and per clock cycle.

The Ryzen 5 240's advantages are limited to structural specifications: a smaller die, more PCIe lanes, and a higher base clock. None of these translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data. The P164's larger die, fewer PCIe lanes, and lower base clock do not prevent it from leading in every performance test.

For any workload captured in the database, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is the correct choice. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, and Zen 5 architecture deliver superior results across data compression, encryption, floating point math, integer math, multithreaded tasks, physics simulation, and single-thread performance. The Ryzen 5 240 remains a capable processor, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the P164. Buyers seeking maximum performance from these two options should select the P164, while those constrained by power budgets will also find the P164 more attractive given its lower TDP and higher scores.