AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core 5 213PE Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 and Intel Core 5 213PE occupy different corners of the processor market, yet their benchmark records reveal a surprisingly one-sided competition. The Intel part wins 13 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD part claims only 2. The average benchmark score for the Intel Core 5 213PE sits at 35428, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 averages 33542, good for the 84th percentile. The overall performance gap is modest at roughly 5.6%, but the distribution of wins tells a more nuanced story about workload-specific strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Intel Core 5 213PE comes in Cinebench R23 multicore, where it scores 22468 against the AMD Ryzen 5 240's 13013. That is a 42.1% advantage, the largest delta in the entire comparison. The single-core variant of the same test shows an even steeper relative gap: Intel scores 3172 versus AMD's 1742, a 45.1% difference. These two results alone establish the Intel part as the dominant performer in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded rendering workloads.

Cinebench R15 results follow the same pattern, though with smaller margins. The Intel Core 5 213PE posts 2264 in multicore against 2078 for the AMD part, an 8.2% lead. In single-core R15, Intel leads 319 to 270, a 15.4% gap. The R15 results are closer than the R23 numbers, suggesting that the older benchmark does not stress the architectural differences as severely.

PassMark's integer math test shows Intel ahead by 20.5%, scoring 92089 versus 73189. Floating point math produces an even larger gap: 68587 for Intel versus 45301 for AMD, a 34% deficit for the AMD part. The physics test also favors Intel heavily, with a score of 1624 against 1060, a 34.7% difference. Prime number finding, which often reflects branch prediction and integer throughput, gives Intel a 38.6% edge (114 versus 70).

Data compression favors Intel by 10.3%, with scores of 298804 and 267963 respectively. Multithreaded PassMark performance shows Intel ahead by 14.3% (26434 versus 22658), and single-thread PassMark puts Intel 9.5% higher (4060 versus 3675). Data encryption is nearly a tie: Intel scores 15916, AMD scores 15849, a difference of only 0.4%.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240's two wins are narrow but real. In extended instructions, AMD scores 20201 against Intel's 19565, a 3.3% advantage. In random string sorting, AMD edges out Intel by 1.1%, posting 32385 versus 32027. Neither of these wins approaches the magnitude of Intel's larger victories, which suggests the AMD part's strengths are confined to specific instruction-level and memory-access patterns rather than general throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 213PE clearly dominates in rendering, physics simulation, and heavy mathematical workloads. The Cinebench R23 multicore and single-core results, along with the floating point math and physics scores, point to a processor that sustains high throughput across both integer and floating point execution. The 45.1% single-core R23 lead is particularly notable because it indicates that even a single Intel core outperforms a single AMD core by a wide margin in that workload, not just the full chip.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 finds its footing in tasks that reward efficient instruction encoding or specific data manipulation patterns. The extended instructions win of 3.3% suggests AMD's Zen 4 cores handle certain SIMD or specialized instruction sequences slightly better. The random string sorting win of 1.1% is marginal but consistent with a memory subsystem that handles pointer-chasing and irregular access patterns effectively. However, these wins are isolated and small; the AMD part does not approach Intel's level in any of the heavier compute tests.

For users focused on rendering, scientific computation, or any workload dominated by floating point math, the Intel Core 5 213PE is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For workloads that involve specialized instruction streams or irregular data sorting, the AMD Ryzen 5 240 offers a slight advantage, though the margin is thin enough that real-world differences may be negligible.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses a Zen 4 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process node, with 25,000 million transistors packed into a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 213PE uses a Bartlett Lake design on Intel's 10 nm process node; the database does not list transistor count or die size for this part. The process node difference is substantial: 4 nm versus 10 nm, which typically implies significant differences in power efficiency and transistor density, though the measured performance does not always follow that expectation.

Core and thread counts differ as well. The AMD part has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel part has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part therefore has two more physical cores and four more threads, which partially explains its multicore advantages. Cache hierarchies also diverge: AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. Intel's larger L3 cache (24 MB versus 16 MB) and larger per-core L2 may contribute to its data compression and integer math advantages.

Memory support differs in both type and bandwidth. The AMD part supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel access and a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but its recorded bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s. The AMD part has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth, yet it loses in most memory-sensitive tests, suggesting that the Intel core design compensates for lower bandwidth with better access patterns or prefetch behavior.

PCIe capabilities also differ. AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part's PCIe Gen 5 support is newer, though the lane count is lower. Socket compatibility is entirely different: AMD uses Socket FP8, which is a mobile platform socket, while Intel uses Socket 1700, a desktop socket. This reflects the market segment split: AMD is listed as Mobile, Intel as Desktop.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD part uses Radeon 760M, while the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 730. The database does not provide benchmark scores for the iGPU, so no performance comparison is possible from the recorded data. ECC memory support also differs: Intel supports ECC, AMD does not. This is a meaningful distinction for reliability-sensitive workloads, though the database does not quantify its impact.

Specification Differences

The base clock of the AMD Ryzen 5 240 is 4.30 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 213PE has a base clock of 2.70 GHz. The boost clock reverses the picture: AMD boosts to 5.00 GHz, Intel boosts to 5.20 GHz. The Intel part has a higher peak clock but a much lower base clock, which reflects its higher core count and different power management strategy.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The AMD part is rated at 45 W, the Intel part at 65 W. This 20 W difference likely contributes to the Intel part's higher sustained performance in multicore tests, but it also implies higher cooling requirements. The Intel part is unlocked in the sense that its multiplier is not locked, though the database does not indicate whether AMD's part is likewise unlocked; the AMD part is listed as not having an unlocked multiplier.

The memory bus is dual-channel for both, but the supported memory types differ as noted. The AMD part's maximum recorded bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s; the Intel part's is 76.8 GB/s. The Intel part supports ECC memory, the AMD part does not. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $221; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Release dates differ by over a year: the AMD part was released on 2025-01-05, the Intel part on 2026-03-08. Both are listed as Active in production status. The part numbers are distinct: AMD's is 100-000001727, Intel's is SA4QG.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE has an average benchmark score of 35428, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has an average score of 33542, placing it in the 84th percentile.

Q: How large is the Cinebench R23 multicore gap?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 22468 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 scores 13013. This gives Intel a 42.1% advantage.

Q: Are there any tests where the AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins?

A: Yes, the AMD part wins in PassMark extended instructions (20201 versus 19565, a 3.3% advantage) and in PassMark random string sorting (32385 versus 32027, a 1.1% advantage).

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 5 213PE has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is rated at 45 W. The Intel Core 5 213PE is rated at 65 W.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core 5 213PE is the faster processor in nearly every measured workload. Its 13 wins out of 15 head-to-head tests include the largest margins in rendering, physics, and floating point math. It also holds a higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking. For workloads that depend on raw compute throughput, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the Intel part delivers consistently superior results.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is not without merit. It wins in extended instructions and random string sorting, and its 45 W TDP is 20 W lower than the Intel part's 65 W rating, which suggests better power efficiency for mobile or thermally constrained systems. Its 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is higher than the Intel part's 76.8 GB/s, and it uses a more advanced 4 nm process node versus Intel's 10 nm. These factors may matter for specific use cases, but the benchmark scores do not show them translating into general performance wins.

Users who need maximum compute performance in rendering, simulation, or mathematical workloads should select the Intel Core 5 213PE based on the recorded data. Users who prioritize lower power consumption, a mobile platform socket, or the specific instruction-level advantages seen in extended instructions and random string sorting may prefer the AMD Ryzen 5 240. The Intel part also offers ECC memory support and a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the AMD part offers a higher base clock of 4.30 GHz and a larger memory bandwidth figure. The choice ultimately depends on which of these characteristics matters most for the intended application, but the performance data strongly favors Intel in raw speed.