AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 scores 13,013 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core 5 320 scores 6,197. The AMD processor is 110% ahead in this test.

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

A: The Intel Core 5 320 wins the single-core tests. It scores 1,926 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1,742 for the AMD Ryzen 5 240, a 9.6% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, Intel scores 4,045 versus 3,675 for AMD, also a 9.1% advantage.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: Both have 6 cores, but the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 12 threads while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 threads. The AMD processor uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Intel Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15 watts. Intel's chip is rated for substantially lower power draw.

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score for AMD is 33,542 versus 18,023 for Intel.

Q: What memory configurations do the two support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 supports dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only in single-channel configuration with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two distinct mobile processor designs with different priorities. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins 9 of the 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons and delivers an average benchmark score of 33,542, placing it at the 84th percentile. The Intel Core 5 320 wins 6 comparisons, averages 18,023, and sits at the 72nd percentile.

The AMD part is the multi-threaded workhorse. Its 12 threads and dual-channel memory path give it commanding leads in integer math, data compression, and multi-core rendering. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result shows a 110% advantage, meaning the AMD chip delivers more than double the score of the Intel part in that workload. For users running parallel workloads, rendering tasks, or heavy data processing, the data overwhelmingly favors the AMD Ryzen 5 240.

The Intel Core 5 320 counters with a lower 15-watt TDP and superior single-thread scores. It leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 9.6%, in PassMark single-thread by 9.1%, and in Cinebench R15 single-core by 2.2%. It also wins the PassMark physics test by 13.2% and the prime number finding test by 36.4%. These results indicate faster per-core execution, which matters for lightly threaded applications and responsiveness.

The choice between these two depends on workload type. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 suits users who need maximum throughput across many threads. The Intel Core 5 320 suits users who prioritize single-thread speed and lower power draw. The TDP figures reinforce this split: 45 watts for AMD versus 15 watts for Intel. Systems with tighter thermal and power budgets would lean toward the Intel part, while performance-focused mobile systems would lean toward the AMD part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The multi-core results show the largest gaps between the two processors. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 5 240 scores 13,013 against 6,197 for the Intel Core 5 320, a 110% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar story: 2,078 for AMD versus 1,054 for Intel, a 97.2% advantage. PassMark integer math produces the biggest delta of all: 73,189 for AMD versus 32,323 for Intel, a 126.4% lead.

Data-intensive workloads follow the same pattern. PassMark data compression shows 267,963 for AMD versus 148,779 for Intel, an 80.1% difference. Random string sorting goes 32,385 versus 18,038, a 79.5% lead for AMD. Extended instructions score 20,201 versus 13,262, a 52.3% advantage. Data encryption shows 15,849 versus 10,984, a 44.3% lead. PassMark multi-thread delivers 22,658 versus 15,450, a 46.7% advantage for AMD.

The floating-point math test is closer. AMD scores 45,301 against 42,440 for Intel, a 6.7% lead. This remains a win for AMD, but the margin is much narrower than in integer workloads.

The Intel Core 5 320 takes the single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread and single-thread (both recorded) show 4,045 versus 3,675, a 9.1% advantage for Intel. Cinebench R23 single-core gives Intel 1,926 against 1,742 for AMD, a 9.6% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core is nearly tied: 276 for Intel versus 270 for AMD, a 2.2% edge for Intel.

Two additional Intel wins stand out. PassMark physics shows 1,221 for Intel versus 1,060 for AMD, a 13.2% lead. PassMark find prime numbers shows 110 for Intel versus 70 for AMD, a 36.4% advantage. These results suggest Intel's per-core efficiency extends into specific computational tasks beyond the standard single-thread tests.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ significantly. Both processors have 6 cores, but the AMD Ryzen 5 240 supports 12 threads while the Intel Core 5 320 supports only 6. This means the AMD chip has SMT enabled, effectively doubling its thread count.

Clock speeds diverge substantially. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The AMD part runs much higher at base, while the boost clocks are closer but still favor AMD by 0.40 GHz.

TDP ratings show a major difference. The AMD processor is rated at 45 watts, while the Intel processor is rated at 15 watts. This is a 30-watt gap in thermal design power.

Memory support differs in channel configuration. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD chip has roughly 50% more memory bandwidth on paper.

PCIe lane counts also differ. The AMD processor provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Intel processor provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part has more than three times the PCIe connectivity.

The integrated graphics differ. AMD uses the Radeon 760M, while Intel uses the Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The socket and packaging also differ: AMD uses Socket FP8, Intel uses BGA 1516.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename. It is built on a 4 nm process from TSMC and contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process from Intel. No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel part.

Cache configurations differ between the two. The AMD processor has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip's L3 cache is more than 2.5 times larger.

The manufacturing approach differs as well. AMD outsources to TSMC at 4 nm, while Intel fabricates at 3 nm. The Intel process node is smaller, but the AMD chip compensates with higher clocks and more threads.

Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part has part number 100-000001727, while the Intel part has part number SAE3H. The AMD processor was released on January 5, 2025, while the Intel processor has a release date of April 15, 2026.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (-0.4%), AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX (-0.4%), and Intel Core i5-12600HX (0.5%). The Intel Core 5 320's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (0.2%), Intel Core 5 120U (0.7%), Intel Core i5-1334U (-0.7%), and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (0.7%). The rival profiles confirm that the AMD part competes in a higher performance tier than the Intel part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 dominates in multi-threaded and data-heavy workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core, Cinebench R15 multi-core, PassMark integer math, data compression, random string sorting, extended instructions, data encryption, multi-thread, and floating-point math all go to AMD. The margin ranges from 6.7% in floating-point math to 126.4% in integer math. The AMD chip also offers dual-channel memory at 89.6 GB/s and 20 PCIe lanes, which supports bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in single-thread performance and selected specialized tests. It leads in Cinebench R23 single-core, Cinebench R15 single-core, PassMark single-thread, PassMark physics, and PassMark find prime numbers. The margins range from 2.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core to 36.4% in prime number finding. The Intel chip operates at 15 watts TDP, which makes it suitable for power-constrained mobile designs. Its single-channel memory and 6 PCIe lanes place it in a more limited platform role.

The benchmark breakdown shows a clear division of labor. For rendering, compilation, encryption, compression, and general parallel compute, the AMD Ryzen 5 240 is the stronger choice. For responsive single-threaded applications, physics calculations, and low-power operation, the Intel Core 5 320 holds the advantage. The 45-watt AMD part and 15-watt Intel part bracket two different mobile use cases, and the recorded scores align with that separation.