AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts for the AMD Ryzen 5 240 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ryzen Embedded 9700X uses 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X boosts to 5.50 GHz, which is higher than the 5.00 GHz boost clock of the AMD Ryzen 5 240.

Q: Do these processors use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on a 4 nm process node at TSMC. However, the dies differ substantially: the Ryzen 5 240 has a die size of 178 mm² and 25,000 million transistors, while the Ryzen Embedded 9700X has a smaller die at 70.6 mm² with 8,315 million transistors.

Q: What memory features differentiate the two?

A: Both support DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen Embedded 9700X supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 5 240 does not.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes and what generation?

A: The Ryzen Embedded 9700X provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only). The Ryzen 5 240 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What are the market segments and sockets?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 targets the mobile segment and uses AMD Socket FP8. The Ryzen Embedded 9700X targets the desktop segment and uses AMD Socket AM5.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two AMD processors is significant, as they represent different core designs and platform strategies. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is a mobile processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, with the codename Hawk Point. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X is a desktop-class part using the Zen 5 architecture, with the codename Granite Ridge. This generational split is visible in the per-core cache structures. The Ryzen 5 240 has an L1 cache of 64 KB per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen Embedded 9700X expands the L1 to 80 KB per core, keeps the same 1 MB L2 per core, and doubles the shared L3 to 32 MB.

Both chips are fabricated on a 4 nm process node at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes tell different stories. The Ryzen 5 240 integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, which reflects its mobile focus and integrated Radeon 760M graphics. The Ryzen Embedded 9700X uses 8,315 million transistors on a much smaller 70.6 mm² die, with a simpler integrated Radeon Graphics solution. The smaller die and higher core count suggest a design aimed at sustained desktop workloads rather than battery-conscious mobile use.

The platform features also diverge. The Ryzen 5 240 uses AMD Socket FP8, which is typical for thin-and-light laptops, and supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The Ryzen Embedded 9700X uses AMD Socket AM5, supports PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes, and adds ECC memory support, which is absent on the mobile part. Additionally, the Ryzen Embedded 9700X has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ryzen 5 240 is locked. The Ryzen 5 240 has a 45 W TDP, while the Ryzen Embedded 9700X has a 65 W TDP, which aligns with their respective mobile and desktop design targets.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split in capabilities based on the intended usage environment. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins in scenarios that prioritize power efficiency and portability. Its 45 W TDP is lower than the 65 W TDP of the Ryzen Embedded 9700X, making it a better fit for compact mobile systems where thermal and battery constraints are primary. The Ryzen 5 240 also has a higher base clock of 4.30 GHz compared to 3.80 GHz on the Ryzen Embedded 9700X, which can benefit lightly threaded tasks that rely on sustained base frequency. Its integrated Radeon 760M graphics is a more robust iGPU solution than the generic Radeon Graphics on the embedded part, giving it an edge for light graphics work or media playback without a discrete GPU.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X wins in raw compute capacity and platform expandability. With 8 cores and 16 threads versus 6 cores and 12 threads, it has a structural advantage in multi-threaded workloads. Its larger 32 MB L3 cache, double the 16 MB on the Ryzen 5 240, helps with data-heavy applications that benefit from larger cache residency. The boost clock of 5.50 GHz is 500 MHz higher than the Ryzen 5 240's 5.00 GHz, which gives it a peak single-thread advantage. The embedded part also supports ECC memory, which is critical for reliability-focused environments such as servers or storage systems. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 24 lanes provides more bandwidth and lane count for high-speed peripherals, making it the choice for desktop systems with multiple expansion cards or NVMe drives. The unlocked multiplier on the embedded chip also allows manual frequency adjustment, a feature the mobile part lacks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 240 | AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X |

|----------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------|

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Granite Ridge |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | 8,315 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 70.6 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 24 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 760M | Radeon Graphics |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | 100-000001727 | 100-000001404E |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark results recorded in the database for these two processors, and the Ryzen Embedded 9700X has no standalone benchmark data available. However, the Ryzen 5 240 has a full set of recorded scores from Cinebench and Passmark tests, which can be interpreted against its percentile standing. The Ryzen 5 240 achieves an average benchmark score of 33,542 and sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs in the database. That percentile places it above the majority of processors, with its nearest rivals being the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H at an average score of 33,537 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS at 33,667 (-0.4% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX at 33,668 (-0.4% delta), and the Intel Core i5-12600HX at 33,375 (0.5% delta). These deltas are small, meaning the Ryzen 5 240 sits in a tightly contested performance band where differences of less than 1% separate it from its closest competitors.

The recorded Cinebench scores for the Ryzen 5 240 show a multicore result of 13,013 in R23 and 2,078 in R15, with single-core scores of 1,742 in R23 and 270 in R15. In Passmark tests, the Ryzen 5 240 shows notable strengths in data compression with a score of 267,963, while data encryption reaches 15,849 and extended instructions hit 20,201. The floating-point math score of 45,301 and integer math score of 73,189 indicate solid arithmetic throughput. The multithread score of 22,658 and single-thread score of 3,675 confirm that the chip performs competitively within its peer group. The physics score of 1,060 and random string sorting score of 32,385 round out the recorded results, with find prime numbers at 70.

Since the Ryzen Embedded 9700X has no recorded benchmark scores and no nearest rivals in the database, a direct numeric comparison between the two parts is not possible from the measured data. What can be stated from the specification differences is that the Ryzen Embedded 9700X has a structural advantage in core count, cache size, and peak clock speed, which typically translates to higher multi-threaded and single-threaded peak performance in benchmark conditions. The Ryzen 5 240 counters with a higher base clock and a lower TDP, which can result in better sustained performance in power-constrained mobile chassis. The absence of benchmark data for the embedded part means its actual performance relative to the Ryzen 5 240 remains unmeasured in this database, and any conclusion about its speed must be inferred from the recorded specifications only. The Ryzen 5 240's 84th percentile ranking and its narrow delta against rivals such as the Ryzen 7 8840HS and Core Ultra 7 255H place it as a mid-to-upper performer in the mobile space, while the Ryzen Embedded 9700X's 50th percentile and zero average score indicate that its performance profile is not yet characterized by the available measurements.