AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear performance hierarchy between these two AMD processors, though the comparison is constrained by incomplete benchmark coverage. The AMD Ryzen 5 240, a mobile-oriented Zen 4 part, has a substantial body of benchmark results across 15 tests, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X, a Zen 5 desktop part, has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, leaving its performance characteristics entirely unquantified. The Ryzen 5 240 delivers a multicore score of 13,013 in Cinebench R23 and a single-core score of 1,742 in the same test, with a PassMark multithread score of 22,658 and a PassMark single-thread score of 3,675. The Embedded 9600X, by contrast, shows an average benchmark score of 0 and no recorded wins in any test. The data indicates that the Ryzen 5 240 is the only option with measurable performance evidence; the Embedded 9600X cannot be evaluated on the same terms. For workloads that require validated, documented throughput, the Ryzen 5 240 is the only contender with data to support a decision. The Embedded 9600X offers architectural advantages on paper, including a newer Zen 5 core design, a higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz, and double the L3 cache at 32 MB, but benchmark results do not yet confirm whether these translate into practical performance gains.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The base clock situation is reversed: the Ryzen 5 240 runs at 4.30 GHz base, while the Embedded 9600X runs at 3.90 GHz base.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, which is double the 16 MB of shared L3 cache found on the AMD Ryzen 5 240. Both processors have 1 MB of L2 cache per core, but their L1 cache differs: the Ryzen 5 240 has 64 KB per core, while the Embedded 9600X has 80 KB per core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not. Both support DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with an identical memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a better recorded benchmark percentile?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 33,542. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X sits in the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of 0, reflecting the absence of recorded benchmark results.

Q: What are the socket and platform differences between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses AMD Socket FP8, which is a mobile platform socket, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X uses AMD Socket AM5, a desktop platform socket. The Ryzen 5 240 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Embedded 9600X provides PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes.

Q: Which processor has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations, despite sharing the same 4 nm TSMC fabrication process. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Granite Ridge codename. The generation labels in the database describe the Ryzen 5 240 as part of the Ryzen 5 lineup with Zen 4 (Hawk Point), and the Embedded 9600X as part of the Ryzen Embedded lineup with Zen 5 (Granite Ridge). The process node is identical: both are manufactured by TSMC at 4 nm. The transistor counts differ dramatically: the Ryzen 5 240 integrates 25,000 million transistors on a die size of 178 mm², whereas the Embedded 9600X integrates 8,315 million transistors on a die size of 70.6 mm². This inversion suggests a different physical design, with the mobile part carrying a much larger integrated GPU and the desktop part focusing on CPU cores.

The core and thread counts are equal: both have 6 cores and 12 threads. The cache hierarchy diverges in capacity. 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 Embedded 9600X has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L1 and L3 caches on the Embedded 9600X are consistent with the Zen 5 design goals of improved instruction fetch and larger working sets. Neither processor has 3D V-Cache, so the L3 differences stand alone.

Feature support also separates the two. The Ryzen 5 240 uses AMD Socket FP8, targets the mobile market segment, includes the Radeon 760M integrated graphics, and does not support ECC memory. The Embedded 9600X uses AMD Socket AM5, targets the desktop market segment, includes Radeon Graphics, and supports ECC memory. The PCIe capabilities differ: the Ryzen 5 240 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Embedded 9600X offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes. The Embedded 9600X has an unlocked multiplier, which the Ryzen 5 240 lacks. The power envelope differs as well: the Ryzen 5 240 has a TDP of 45, while the Embedded 9600X has a TDP of 65. The Ryzen 5 240 was released on 2025-01-05, and the Embedded 9600X was released on 2025-10-06, making the latter a later part. The Embedded 9600X carries the part number 100-000001405E, while the Ryzen 5 240 carries 100-000001727.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen 5 240 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts show 0 wins for each processor. The only performance evidence available comes from the Ryzen 5 240's own benchmark suite. In Cinebench R15, the Ryzen 5 240 scores 2,078 in multicore and 270 in single-core. In Cinebench R23, it scores 13,013 in multicore and 1,742 in single-core. The PassMark suite adds further detail: a multithread score of 22,658, a single-thread score of 3,675, integer math at 73,189, floating point math at 45,301, extended instructions at 20,201, data compression at 267,963, data encryption at 15,849, random string sorting at 32,385, physics at 1,060, and prime number finding at 70.

The nearest rivals for the Ryzen 5 240 offer context on its standing. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has an average benchmark score of 33,537, which is 0% different from the Ryzen 5 240's 33,542. The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS scores 33,667, a delta of -0.4%, meaning the Ryzen 5 240 trails by a very small margin. The AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX also scores 33,668, another -0.4% delta. The Intel Core i5-12600HX scores 33,375, a delta of 0.5%, putting the Ryzen 5 240 slightly ahead. These rival deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating the Ryzen 5 240 sits in a tightly contested performance band. The Embedded 9600X has no nearest rivals recorded, which reinforces the absence of benchmark data for that part.

The benchmark data shows that the Ryzen 5 240's strongest recorded results come from integer math and floating point math, where it scores 73,189 and 45,301 respectively, and from data compression, where it reaches 267,963. The single-thread score of 3,675 in PassMark and 1,742 in Cinebench R23 indicate a competitive single-core showing for a mobile chip. The multicore results, 13,013 in Cinebench R23 and 22,658 in PassMark, align with its 6-core, 12-thread configuration. Without any recorded scores for the Embedded 9600X, the data cannot confirm which processor would win in any specific workload, despite the Embedded part's architectural advantages in cache size, boost clock, and generation.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins in every category where recorded performance data exists, simply because the Embedded 9600X has no benchmark results in the database. The Ryzen 5 240 demonstrates measurable capability in compute-heavy workloads: its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 13,013 and PassMark multithread score of 22,658 position it as a capable 6-core part for parallel tasks. Its single-core scores of 1,742 in Cinebench R23 and 3,675 in PassMark indicate solid responsiveness for single-threaded applications. The data also shows strength in specific computational tasks: integer math at 73,189, floating point math at 45,301, and extended instructions at 20,201. For data-centric workloads, the Ryzen 5 240 records a data compression score of 267,963 and a data encryption score of 15,849. These figures give the Ryzen 5 240 a documented edge in any scenario where benchmark-verified performance is required.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X wins only in the specifications that can be compared directly from the database. It has a higher boost clock at 5.40 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, a larger shared L3 cache at 32 MB versus 16 MB, a larger L1 cache per core at 80 KB versus 64 KB, and PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes versus Gen 4 with 20 lanes. It also supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen 5 240 does not, and has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The Embedded 9600X targets the desktop segment with a TDP of 65, while the Ryzen 5 240 targets mobile with a TDP of 45. The Embedded part's Zen 5 architecture, newer release date, and higher boost clock suggest it should outperform the Ryzen 5 240 in raw compute, but the database contains no measurements to confirm this expectation. The Ryzen 5 240's 84th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 33,542 stand as the only quantitative performance evidence in this comparison. The Embedded 9600X's 50th percentile and average score of 0 reflect missing data rather than poor performance. Any claim of a win for the Embedded 9600X would rest on architectural inference, not recorded results.