AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen 5 240 versus the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts for both processors are zero. This means no direct comparison scores exist in the recorded data for these two specific parts.

However, the Ryzen 5 240 has its own complete benchmark profile. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 13013, and its single-core score is 1742. In Cinebench R15, it records 2078 points multicore and 270 points single-core. PassMark results show a multithread score of 22658, a single-thread score of 3675, and an average benchmark score of 33542. The Ryzen Embedded 9900X has no recorded benchmarks in the database, so its performance profile is entirely absent from the measurements.

The Ryzen 5 240 sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 33542. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H with an average score of 33537 and a delta of 0 percent, the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS at 33667 with a delta of -0.4 percent, the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX at 33668 with a delta of -0.4 percent, and the Intel Core i5-12600HX at 33375 with a delta of 0.5 percent. These deltas are all within a half-percentage point, indicating the Ryzen 5 240 performs inline with its immediate competitive set in aggregate workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and microarchitectures. The Ryzen 5 240 uses Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, and it belongs to the Ryzen 5 generation family. The Ryzen Embedded 9900X uses Zen 5 architecture under the Granite Ridge codename, and it belongs to the 9000 series within the Ryzen Embedded generation.

Both are manufactured on a 4 nm process node by TSMC, but their physical layouts differ substantially. The Ryzen 5 240 has a single die measuring 178 mm², with 25,000 million transistors. The Ryzen Embedded 9900X uses a dual-die design with two 70.6 mm² dies, totaling 141.2 mm², and contains 16,630 million transistors. The chiplet approach of the embedded part is evident in the die configuration.

Core counts differ significantly. The Ryzen 5 240 delivers 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ryzen Embedded 9900X doubles that to 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds also favor the embedded part: the Ryzen 5 240 has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, whereas the Ryzen Embedded 9900X runs at 4.40 GHz base and 5.60 GHz boost. The embedded processor therefore has both more cores and higher clocks.

Cache hierarchies differ in capacity per core and in total L3. The Ryzen 5 240 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen Embedded 9900X has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3. The L3 difference is 48 MB in favor of the embedded part.

Thermal design power is another clear distinction. The Ryzen 5 240 is rated at 45 watts TDP, while the Ryzen Embedded 9900X is rated at 120 watts. Socket compatibility also separates them: the Ryzen 5 240 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Ryzen Embedded 9900X uses AMD Socket AM5. The multiplier is locked on the Ryzen 5 240, but unlocked on the Ryzen Embedded 9900X.

Memory support matches on generation and channel width: both support DDR5 and use a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory support differs, with the Ryzen 5 240 lacking it and the Ryzen Embedded 9900X supporting it. PCIe capabilities also differ: the Ryzen 5 240 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen Embedded 9900X offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics are present on both, but the Ryzen 5 240 uses the Radeon 760M, while the Ryzen Embedded 9900X uses a generic Radeon Graphics solution. The Ryzen 5 240 is classified in the mobile market segment, whereas the Ryzen Embedded 9900X is a desktop part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The Ryzen Embedded 9900X has 64 MB of L3 cache, while the Ryzen 5 240 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and identical 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Ryzen Embedded 9900X supports ECC memory. The Ryzen 5 240 does not.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 has a 45-watt TDP, while the Ryzen Embedded 9900X has a 120-watt TDP.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen Embedded 9900X has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, compared to 5.00 GHz on the Ryzen 5 240.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 240 | AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X |

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

| Cores | 6 | 12 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 120 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Granite Ridge |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | 16,630 million |

| Die size | 178 mm² | 2x 70.6 mm² |

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

| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 64 MB |

| 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 | 100-000000662E |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2025-10-06 |

The two parts share several characteristics: both are manufactured by AMD on a 4 nm TSMC process, both use DDR5 memory with dual-channel support and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, both have 1 MB of L2 per core, and both are in active production.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has the advantage in the recorded benchmark data, simply because it has any benchmarks at all. Its 84th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database indicates solid aggregate performance. Its nearest rivals, all within a half-percentage point in average score, suggest it competes directly with current-generation mid-range mobile and desktop parts. The processor achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 13013 and a single-core score of 1742, which places it in a competitive position for general productivity workloads.

The Ryzen Embedded 9900X cannot claim any benchmark wins in the database because no scores are recorded for it. Its percentile ranking of 50 is a placeholder based on the absence of data, not a performance measurement. The average benchmark score of 0 confirms that no tests have been logged.

Architectural strengths favor the Ryzen Embedded 9900X in several areas. Its 12 cores and 24 threads give it a theoretical multithreading advantage over the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 240. The Zen 5 architecture in the embedded part is a newer microarchitecture than the Zen 4 in the Ryzen 5 240. Higher base and boost clocks, at 4.40 GHz and 5.60 GHz respectively, provide additional headroom for single-threaded tasks. The 64 MB of L3 cache is four times larger than the 16 MB on the Ryzen 5 240, which can benefit workloads with large working sets. PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes offers more modern connectivity than the Gen 4 with 20 lanes on the Ryzen 5 240.

The Ryzen 5 240 wins on efficiency and mobility. Its 45-watt TDP is less than half the 120-watt TDP of the Ryzen Embedded 9900X, making it suitable for systems where power draw is constrained. Its mobile market segment classification and FP8 socket indicate it is designed for notebooks and compact platforms, whereas the embedded part targets desktop installations with an AM5 socket. The Ryzen 5 240 also carries a smaller die footprint at 178 mm² compared to the dual-die 141.2 mm² total of the embedded part, though the latter is split across two chiplets.

ECC memory support is a clear win for the Ryzen Embedded 9900X, as is the unlocked multiplier. These features align with embedded and enthusiast desktop use cases, where reliability tuning and overclocking are relevant. The Ryzen 5 240 lacks both.

For workloads that depend on sustained multithreaded throughput, the Ryzen Embedded 9900X has the structural edge on paper: more cores, more threads, higher clocks, and more cache. For workloads that prioritize power efficiency and portability, the Ryzen 5 240 is the better fit. The database currently only contains performance evidence for the Ryzen 5 240, so any conclusions about the embedded part must rely on its specification sheet rather than measured results.