AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 wins every single-threaded benchmark in the head-to-head data. It leads by 7.5% in Cinebench R15 single-core (292 vs. 270) and by 14.9% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2046 vs. 1742). PassMark single-thread shows a 10.4% advantage for Intel (4100 vs. 3675).

Q: How large is the multi-threaded performance gap?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 dominates multi-threaded tests. It scores 2078 vs. 1220 in Cinebench R15 multi-core (70.3% ahead) and 13013 vs. 8030 in Cinebench R23 multi-core (62.1% ahead). PassMark multithread also favors AMD by 49.4% (22658 vs. 15170).

Q: Do the two processors use the same number of cores and threads?

A: No. Both have 6 cores, but the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 12 threads while the Intel Core 7 350 has only 6 threads. The AMD part also has a much higher base clock (4.30 GHz vs. 1.50 GHz) and a 5.00 GHz boost clock versus Intel's 4.80 GHz.

Q: Which CPU has the higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile. The average benchmark score for AMD is 33542, compared to 17779 for Intel.

Q: What are the closest competitors for each chip according to the database?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 sits within 0.5% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS, the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX, and the Intel Core i5-12600HX. The Intel Core 7 350 sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core 5 221TE, the AMD EPYC 9374F, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, and the Intel Core 5 120U.

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins 9 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 7 350 wins the remaining 6, which are all single-threaded or lightly threaded tests.

The Verdict

The data splits these two mobile processors into clear roles. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is the multi-threaded workhorse. It wins 9 of 15 head-to-head comparisons, including every rendering, math, encryption, and compression test. Its 12 threads, 4.30 GHz base clock, and 5.00 GHz boost clock give it a decisive edge in heavily parallel workloads. The 84th percentile ranking and average score of 33542 place it among much larger desktop-class parts like the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H and AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS.

The Intel Core 7 350 is the efficiency and single-thread specialist. It has a 15 W TDP versus AMD's 45 W TDP, a 3 nm process node from Intel, and it wins every single-threaded test in the comparison. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock and larger per-core cache help it deliver a 14.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and a 10.4% lead in PassMark single-thread. The 71st percentile ranking reflects its lower average score of 17779, which is roughly half of AMD's average.

For a thin-and-light system where battery life and low heat matter more than raw throughput, the Intel part's 15 W envelope and single-thread wins make it the sensible choice. For any workload that can use more than one or two threads, the Ryzen 5 240 delivers dramatically higher scores. The data does not present a single winner; it presents two different designs aimed at two different usage patterns.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest victory for the AMD Ryzen 5 240 comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 73189 against Intel's 33734, a 117% advantage. That is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. Random string sorting also heavily favors AMD, with a score of 32385 versus 17238, an 87.9% lead. Data compression shows an 87.2% gap (267963 vs. 143123), and extended instructions favor AMD by 67.7% (20201 vs. 12045).

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD scores 2078 against Intel's 1220, a 70.3% lead. The R23 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 13013 vs. 8030, a 62.1% gap. PassMark multithread gives AMD a 49.4% win (22658 vs. 15170), and data encryption adds a 45% advantage (15849 vs. 10933). Even floating-point math, the closest of AMD's wins, still goes to the Ryzen by 5.8% (45301 vs. 42809).

The Intel Core 7 350 takes its wins in single-threaded and lightweight tests. The biggest is PassMark find prime numbers, where Intel scores 107 against AMD's 70, a 34.6% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows Intel ahead by 14.9% (2046 vs. 1742). PassMark single-thread and single-thread (recorded as two separate entries with identical values) both show Intel at 4100 vs. AMD's 3675, a 10.4% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core gives Intel a 7.5% win (292 vs. 270), and PassMark physics shows a 9.6% advantage (1173 vs. 1060).

The overall pattern is unambiguous: AMD wins every multi-threaded test by margins between 5.8% and 117%, while Intel wins every single-threaded test by margins between 7.5% and 34.6%. No test in the head-to-head data goes against that split.

Specification Differences

The core counts match at 6 cores each, but the thread counts diverge sharply. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 supports 12 threads; the Intel Core 7 350 supports only 6. Base clocks differ by a wide margin: AMD runs at 4.30 GHz, Intel at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with AMD at 5.00 GHz and Intel at 4.80 GHz.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The AMD part carries a 45 W TDP, while the Intel part is rated at just 15 W. That 30 W gap explains the Intel chip's appeal for low-power mobile designs. Sockets also differ: AMD uses the FP8 socket, Intel uses BGA 1516.

Memory support shows another split. The AMD chip supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither CPU supports ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ as well: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, Intel offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are different as well. AMD pairs the Ryzen 5 240 with a Radeon 760M, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The release dates are about 15 months apart, with AMD launching on January 5, 2025, and Intel on April 15, 2026. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $469. Both processors have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The chip integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. Cache layout gives each core 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, with 16 MB of shared L3.

The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. Transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. Cache layout is different: each core gets 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2, but the shared L3 is only 6 MB. That is 10 MB less L3 than the AMD chip.

The cache strategy reflects the different design goals. Intel gives each core more private L1 and L2, which helps single-threaded responsiveness and explains the Intel wins in single-core benchmarks. AMD allocates a much larger shared L3 pool, which benefits multi-threaded workloads that share data across cores. The 12 threads on the AMD side also allow better utilization of that shared cache during parallel tasks.

Process technology differs by a full node step: Intel's 3 nm versus TSMC's 4 nm for AMD. The Intel chip's 15 W TDP aligns with its smaller process and lower clocks. The AMD chip's 45 W TDP and 4.30 GHz base clock reflect a design that prioritizes sustained throughput over power economy.

The generation labels in the database list AMD as "Ryzen 5 (Zen 4 (Hawk Point))" and Intel as "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)". Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. Both are marketed as mobile parts and both are currently active in production.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins in every scenario that scales across cores. Video rendering, 3D scene compilation, data compression, encryption, and integer-heavy workloads all show large AMD advantages. The 117% lead in integer math and the 87.9% lead in random string sorting indicate that productivity applications with heavy data manipulation will run substantially faster on the Ryzen. The 45% encryption win and 67.7% extended instructions win reinforce that pattern. The 62.1% Cinebench R23 multi-core lead confirms that rendering and content creation tasks should favor AMD heavily.

The AMD part also wins in the database's overall ranking. Its 84th percentile versus Intel's 71st percentile places it in a different performance class. The average benchmark score of 33542 is nearly double Intel's 17779. For a mobile workstation or a performance laptop that spends most of its time under multi-threaded load, the Ryzen 5 240 is the clear choice from this data.

The Intel Core 7 350 wins in single-threaded tasks and in power-constrained environments. The 15 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or ultra-thin designs where the AMD chip's 45 W envelope would be impractical. The single-thread wins, especially the 34.6% lead in prime number search and the 14.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core, point to snappy responsiveness in everyday applications, web browsing, and lightly threaded software.

PassMark physics favors Intel by 9.6%, which suggests certain simulation or physics-based workloads may run better on the Intel chip despite its thread deficit. The Intel part also has the higher single-thread score in both PassMark and Cinebench, so any application that cannot use more than one or two threads will feel faster on the Intel side.

The choice depends on the workload mix. Multi-threaded rendering, encoding, encryption, and data processing belong to the AMD Ryzen 5 240. Single-threaded responsiveness and low-power mobile designs belong to the Intel Core 7 350. The benchmark data draws that line cleanly, with no crossover results.