AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 are both mobile processors from the same manufacturer, yet they occupy distinctly different performance tiers. The benchmark data in the database shows a complete sweep for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388, which wins all 15 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Ryzen 5 240, built on the Zen 4 architecture, delivers competitive single-threaded performance for its class, but the Ryzen AI Max+ 388, using the newer Zen 5 architecture with more cores and a larger cache, establishes a commanding lead across every workload category. This analysis breaks down the recorded scores, the architectural foundations, and the specific scenarios where each processor demonstrates its strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive separation between the two processors appears in heavily multithreaded workloads. In the Cinebench R23 multicore test, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 18,759 points, while the Ryzen 5 240 scores 13,013 points. The recorded difference of 30.6 percent in favor of the larger chip is one of the largest gaps in the dataset. The Cinebench R15 multicore test tells a similar story, with the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scoring 2,872 versus 2,078 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 27.6 percent advantage. These results align with the core count difference: the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 provides 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 240 provides 6 cores and 12 threads.

Single-threaded performance also favors the Ryzen AI Max+ 388, though the margin is considerably narrower. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 1,960, which is 11.1 percent above the Ryzen 5 240's 1,742. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 9.4 percent gap, with scores of 298 and 270 respectively. PassMark single-thread results follow the same pattern: 4,185 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 versus 3,675 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 12.2 percent difference. This indicates that the architectural improvements in Zen 5 provide a measurable per-core uplift, even when the boost clocks are identical at 5.00 GHz for both processors.

The PassMark suite reveals where the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 extends its lead furthest. The largest relative gap in the entire dataset appears in the find prime numbers test, where the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 145 versus just 70 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 51.7 percent difference. This test is highly sensitive to integer execution efficiency and cache behavior, and the Zen 5 architecture combined with 32 MB of shared L3 cache delivers a substantial advantage. The physics test also shows a major divergence, with the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scoring 1,843 against 1,060, a 42.5 percent lead. Extended instructions performance favors the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 by 38.3 percent, with scores of 32,719 versus 20,201. Floating point math shows a 37.7 percent gap, 72,722 versus 45,301.

Other PassMark workloads show consistent but slightly smaller margins. Integer math scores 109,588 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 versus 73,189 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 33.2 percent difference. Data compression shows the same 33.2 percent gap, with 400,887 versus 267,963. Data encryption is closer at a 21.1 percent difference, 20,092 versus 15,849. Multithread performance in PassMark records 33,486 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 versus 22,658 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 32.3 percent lead. Random string sorting shows a 25 percent gap, with 43,196 versus 32,385. The Ryzen 5 240 does not win a single recorded comparison, and the smallest deficit it faces is 9.4 percent in the Cinebench R15 single-core test.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the superior processor in every measured benchmark category. Its average benchmark score of 49,796 places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs in the database, a higher standing than the Ryzen 5 240's 84th percentile and average score of 33,542. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core 9 273PE, which scores nearly identically at 49,845, and the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 49,394, placing it in strong company. The Ryzen 5 240, by contrast, sits alongside the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H at 33,537 and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS at 33,667, with differences of less than one percent in either direction.

For workloads that are heavily multithreaded, such as rendering, physics simulation, and data compression, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the appropriate choice. The 30.6 percent lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and the 42.5 percent lead in PassMark physics are decisive. For users who prioritize single-threaded responsiveness, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 still holds an 11.1 percent advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core, so there is no scenario in the recorded data where the Ryzen 5 240 offers a performance advantage. The Ryzen 5 240 remains a functional mobile processor, but the benchmark record offers no category where it wins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different architecture generations. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the codename Hawk Point, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the codename Strix Halo. Both chips are manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, so the process node is not a differentiating factor. The Ryzen 5 240 has a die size of 178 mm² and contains 25,000 million transistors. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses a dual-die configuration with two dies of 70.6 mm² each, and the database does not record a total transistor count for it.

Cache organization differs substantially. The Ryzen 5 240 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The doubled L3 capacity in the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is a significant factor in its superior performance in cache-sensitive tests like the PassMark find prime numbers workload, where it leads by 51.7 percent.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Ryzen 5 240 pairs with a Radeon 760M, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 pairs with a Radeon 8060S. The database does not provide benchmark scores for the integrated GPUs, so the comparison here is limited to their presence and naming. Memory support differs as well: the Ryzen 5 240 supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The memory bandwidth difference is substantial and contributes to the Ryzen AI Max+ 388's dominance in memory-intensive workloads. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 5 240 does not.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Ryzen 5 240 running at 4.30 GHz and the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at 3.60 GHz, though both share the same 5.00 GHz boost clock. Thermal design power differs, with the Ryzen 5 240 rated at 45 watts and the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 rated at 55 watts. The sockets are different: the Ryzen 5 240 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses AMD Socket FP11. PCIe lane counts differ, with the Ryzen 5 240 providing 20 Gen 4 lanes from the CPU and the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 providing 16 Gen 4 lanes.

The Ryzen 5 240 was released on January 5, 2025, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a recorded release date of January 5, 2026. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both processors are marked as active production status and target the mobile market segment, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers differ, with the Ryzen 5 240 carrying part number 100-000001727 and the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 carrying part number 100-000001980.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multicore rendering?

A: In the Cinebench R23 multicore test, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 18,759 versus 13,013 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 30.6 percent advantage. The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows a 27.6 percent gap, 2,872 versus 2,078.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 240 better in single-threaded performance?

A: No. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 leads in all single-threaded tests, including a 12.2 percent advantage in PassMark single-thread (4,185 versus 3,675) and an 11.1 percent advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core (1,960 versus 1,742).

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 supports dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do the processors use the same architecture?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 240 uses the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Hawk Point, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Strix Halo. Both are built on a 4 nm TSMC process.

Q: How do the processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has an average benchmark score of 49,796, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Ryzen 5 240 has an average score of 33,542, placing it in the 84th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins in every recorded benchmark category, but the size of its advantage varies by workload. For tasks that rely heavily on integer arithmetic and prime number computation, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is exceptionally strong, with a 51.7 percent lead in the find prime numbers test. Physics simulation also favors it heavily, with a 42.5 percent advantage. Extended instruction workloads show a 38.3 percent gap, and floating point math shows a 37.7 percent gap. These results indicate that the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the appropriate choice for scientific computation, engineering simulation, and any workload that stresses the CPU's arithmetic units.

Data compression and integer math both show a 33.2 percent advantage for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388, making it the stronger option for database work, file archiving, and general productivity tasks that involve heavy data manipulation. Multithreaded performance shows a 32.3 percent gap, which reinforces its suitability for content creation and rendering. The memory bandwidth advantage of 256.0 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s likely contributes to these results, particularly in workloads that stream large datasets.

The Ryzen 5 240, while not winning any recorded comparison, still holds relevance in specific contexts based on its specifications. Its lower thermal design power of 45 watts, compared to 55 watts for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388, suggests it may fit into thinner mobile chassis designs, though the database does not provide power consumption measurements beyond the TDP rating. Its 6-core and 12-thread configuration with a 4.30 GHz base clock provides a solid foundation for mobile productivity. The smaller 16 MB L3 cache and dual-channel memory bus are limiting factors, but the processor still achieves an 84th percentile standing among all CPUs.

For users who prioritize the highest possible performance in both single-threaded and multithreaded workloads, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the only choice supported by the data. The 90th percentile standing, the 49,796 average benchmark score, and the complete sweep of all 15 head-to-head comparisons leave no ambiguity. The Ryzen 5 240's role is limited to scenarios where the lower 45 watt TDP and the FP8 socket platform are required, and where the performance deficit is acceptable. The recorded data offers no benchmark where the Ryzen 5 240 surpasses the Ryzen AI Max+ 388.