AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 records an average benchmark score of 90541, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 averages 33542, which lands in the 84th percentile.

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

A: The closest margin between the two appears in single-thread testing. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 3927 in PassMark single-thread, while the Ryzen 5 240 scores 3675, a 6.4% advantage for the larger chip.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The biggest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 320 versus 70 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 78.1% difference.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 doubles the core count with 12 cores and 24 threads, compared to 6 cores and 12 threads on the Ryzen 5 240.

Q: Do both processors share the same boost clock?

A: Yes, both list a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Their base clocks differ, with the Ryzen 5 240 at 4.30 GHz and the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 at 3.20 GHz.

Q: Which chip has a higher memory bandwidth rating?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen 5 240 uses dual-channel DDR5 at 89.6 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Zen generations. The Ryzen 5 240 uses Zen 4 under the Hawk Point codename, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses Zen 5 under Strix Halo. Both are built on TSMC's 4 nm process, but the die configuration diverges sharply. The Ryzen 5 240 is a monolithic 178 mm² die with 25,000 million transistors. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a dual-die setup of 2x 70.6 mm², and the database does not list a total transistor count for it.

Cache layouts also differ. The Ryzen 5 240 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 raises L1 to 80 KB per core, keeps L2 at 1 MB per core, and expands shared L3 to 64 MB. That fourfold L3 increase is a major structural advantage for workloads that fit within the larger pool.

Memory architecture separates the two as well. The Ryzen 5 240 uses DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 moves to LPDDR5X on a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and ECC enabled. The socket changes from AMD Socket FP8 to AMD Socket FP11. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 for both, but the Ryzen 5 240 has 20 CPU lanes versus 16 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 392.

Integrated graphics differ by model. The Ryzen 5 240 carries a Radeon 760M, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 carries a Radeon 8060S. The database does not provide benchmark scores for either iGPU, so direct graphics comparison is not possible from this data.

The release dates are one year apart. The Ryzen 5 240 launched on 2025-01-05, and the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 launched on 2026-01-05. Neither chip has a listed launch MSRP. Both are mobile-market parts with active production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table shows a clean sweep. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins all 11 recorded comparisons, but the margins vary from modest to overwhelming. Single-thread performance is the closest contest. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 leads by 6.4% in PassMark single-thread, scoring 3927 against 3675. That is the only metric where the smaller chip stays within striking distance.

Multi-thread results shift decisively. In PassMark multithread, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45231 versus 22658 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 49.9% advantage. The doubling of cores and threads shows up directly here, though the win is slightly less than double, indicating some scaling overhead.

Integer math follows a similar pattern. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 posts 152414 against 73189, a 52% lead. Floating-point math shows 99548 versus 45301, a 54.5% gap. Data compression is nearly identical in proportional terms: 554760 versus 267963, a 51.7% difference. Data encryption shows a 43% advantage at 27784 versus 15849. Extended instructions widen further to 55.8%, with scores of 45666 and 20201.

The physics test is among the most lopsided. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 2887, while the Ryzen 5 240 scores 1060, a 63.3% gap. Random string sorting favors the larger chip by 45.6%, at 59487 versus 32385. Find prime numbers is the extreme outlier: 320 versus 70, a 78.1% difference. This suggests the Zen 5 architecture and larger cache deliver outsized gains on integer-heavy, dependency-laden workloads.

The average benchmark score gap is even larger than the individual deltas. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 averages 90541, while the Ryzen 5 240 averages 33542. That is a 170% difference in the aggregate metric, driven by the fact that the larger chip wins every subtest by at least 6.4%.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to distinct roles for each processor. The Ryzen 5 240 delivers competitive single-thread performance with a 6.4% deficit to the Ryzen AI Max+ 392, while consuming a lower 45 W TDP and using a smaller dual-channel memory footprint. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H at 0% delta, the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS at -0.4%, the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX at -0.4%, and the Intel Core i5-12600HX at 0.5%. This places it in a dense cluster of mid-range mobile processors where small percentage swings separate products.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 sits in a different competitive tier entirely. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 654 at -0.2%, the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX at -0.7%, the Intel Xeon w7-2575X at 2.7%, and the Intel Xeon 6736P at 3%. These are workstation and high-end enthusiast parts, not mainstream mobile chips. The 96th percentile ranking confirms it belongs in that category.

The verdict from the data is simple: choose the Ryzen 5 240 when the workload is light on multi-threading and the platform constraints matter more than raw throughput. Choose the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 when the workload is heavily parallel, memory-bandwidth sensitive, or cache-hungry. The single-thread gap is small enough to be negligible for most interactive use, while the multi-thread gaps are large enough to be decisive for rendering, compilation, simulation, or any task that scales with core count.

Specification Differences

The two chips diverge on nearly every major specification. Core count: 6 versus 12. Threads: 12 versus 24. Base clock: 4.30 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. Boost clock: identical at 5.00 GHz. TDP: 45 W versus 55 W. Socket: FP8 versus FP11. Architecture: Zen 4 versus Zen 5. Codename: Hawk Point versus Strix Halo. Process node: both 4 nm TSMC, so no difference there. Transistors: 25,000 million for the Ryzen 5 240, not listed for the Ryzen AI Max+ 392. Die size: 178 mm² versus 2x 70.6 mm².

Cache differs across all levels. L1 per core: 64 KB versus 80 KB. L2 per core: 1 MB for both. L3 shared: 16 MB versus 64 MB. Memory support: DDR5 versus LPDDR5X. Memory bus: dual-channel versus quad-channel. Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. ECC: disabled versus enabled. PCIe lanes: 20 versus 16, both Gen 4. Integrated graphics: Radeon 760M versus Radeon 8060S. Release date: 2025-01-05 versus 2026-01-05. Neither has a launch MSRP listed.

The shared traits are worth noting: same manufacturer, same boost clock, same process node, same market segment, same active production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 5 240 wins in power efficiency by specification. Its 45 W TDP is 10 W lower than the 55 W TDP of the Ryzen AI Max+ 392. For thermally constrained mobile chassis, that difference can be decisive. It also offers more PCIe lanes at 20 versus 16, which matters for systems with multiple NVMe drives or other Gen 4 peripherals. The dual-channel DDR5 setup is simpler and likely easier to integrate into thinner designs, though the database does not provide physical dimensions or power measurements to confirm this.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head set. The most extreme win is find prime numbers at 78.1%, followed by physics at 63.3%, extended instructions at 55.8%, floating-point math at 54.5%, integer math at 52%, data compression at 51.7%, and multithread at 49.9%. It also wins data encryption by 43%, random string sorting by 45.6%, and single-thread by 6.4%. The 64 MB L3 cache and quad-channel 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth give it a structural advantage in data-heavy workloads. ECC support adds another dimension for reliability-sensitive computing.

There is no recorded benchmark where the Ryzen 5 240 comes out ahead. The database shows 0 wins for the smaller chip across the 11 head-to-head tests. Its value lies in the combination of lower TDP, more PCIe lanes, and a smaller die footprint, none of which appear in the benchmark scores. The 84th percentile ranking confirms it is still a strong performer overall, just not in the same class as the 96th-percentile Ryzen AI Max+ 392.