AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core i7-13650HX Comparison

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i7-13650HX is significantly ahead. It scores 24,580 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 scores 13,013, a 47.1% deficit for the AMD part.

Q: How do the single-thread scores compare in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i7-13650HX wins by a large margin. It records 3,470 points versus the AMD Ryzen 5 240's 1,742, making the Intel part 49.8% faster in this test.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 240 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. Out of 15 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Intel Core i7-13650HX wins all 15. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not record a single victory in the database.

Q: What is the difference in thread counts between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core i7-13650HX has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads. This difference in core and thread counts directly influences multi-threaded workloads.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i7-13650HX supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not. This makes the Intel part more suitable for error-sensitive computing tasks.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare overall?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has an average benchmark score of 33,542, placing it in the 84th percentile. The Intel Core i7-13650HX has an average score of 33,089, placing it in the 83rd percentile. Despite the Intel part winning every head-to-head test, the AMD part has a slightly higher average score across all recorded benchmarks.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core i7-13650HX is the clear performance leader in direct comparison. It wins all 15 head-to-head benchmarks, with particularly dominant showings in multi-core workloads. The Intel part is 47.1% faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 49.8% faster in Cinebench R23 single-core. In PassMark integer math, it scores 102,929 versus 73,189 for the AMD, a 28.9% advantage.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240, however, holds its own in the aggregate. Its average benchmark score of 33,542 is higher than the Intel's 33,089, and it sits in the 84th percentile versus the Intel's 83rd. This suggests that across a broader set of tests not in the head-to-head list, the AMD part performs comparably or slightly better. The AMD chip also has a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.90 GHz for the Intel.

For users prioritizing raw multi-core throughput, heavy rendering, or data compression, the Intel Core i7-13650HX is the obvious choice. Its 14 cores and 20 threads provide substantial parallel processing capability. For those who need a more balanced overall score across a wide variety of tasks, or who prioritize the efficiency of a 45W TDP versus 55W, the AMD Ryzen 5 240 presents a compelling alternative, especially given its smaller process node and newer release date.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i7-13650HX dominates every single head-to-head test recorded in the database. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where Intel scores 24,580 against AMD's 13,013, a 47.1% difference. Single-core performance in the same benchmark shows a 49.8% lead for Intel, with scores of 3,470 versus 1,742.

In PassMark floating point math, Intel is 40.1% ahead, scoring 75,643 versus 45,301. Physics tests show a 39.3% advantage for Intel, with scores of 1,745 versus 1,060. Data compression favors Intel by 30.2%, with 383,943 versus 267,963. Integer math shows a 28.9% lead for Intel, scoring 102,929 versus 73,189.

Data encryption is 26.8% faster on Intel, with 21,649 versus 15,849. Multithread performance in PassMark shows Intel ahead by 26.2%, scoring 30,704 versus 22,658. Random string sorting favors Intel by 21.3%, with 41,162 versus 32,385.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows Intel ahead by 16.1%, with scores of 2,477 versus 2,078. Single-core in R15 shows Intel ahead by 22.6%, with 349 versus 270. Extended instructions favor Intel by 12.7%, with 23,146 versus 20,201. Prime number finding shows Intel ahead by 32%, with 103 versus 70.

The closest contest is in PassMark single-thread performance, where Intel leads by just 2.5%, scoring 3,769 versus 3,675. This is the only benchmark where the AMD part comes within striking distance, indicating that its Zen 4 architecture is competitive on a per-thread basis, but the Intel part's higher core count and thread count create insurmountable gaps elsewhere.

Specification Differences

The core configuration differs significantly. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core i7-13650HX has 14 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: AMD runs at 4.30 GHz, while Intel runs at 2.60 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with AMD at 5.00 GHz and Intel at 4.90 GHz.

Thermal design power differs by 10 watts: the AMD part is rated at 45W, while the Intel part is rated at 55W. The AMD chip uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel chip uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The AMD die size is 178 mm², while the Intel die is 257 mm². The AMD chip contains 25,000 million transistors; no transistor count is recorded for the Intel part.

Cache layouts differ. AMD uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Intel uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. Memory support also differs: AMD supports DDR5 only, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is recorded for AMD at 89.6 GB/s; no bandwidth figure is recorded for Intel.

ECC memory support differs, with Intel supporting it and AMD not. PCIe generation differs: AMD uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are different: AMD has Radeon 760M, while Intel has UHD Graphics 710.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while Intel uses Intel BGA 1964. The AMD multiplier is locked, while the Intel multiplier is unlocked. Release dates differ: AMD was released on 2025-01-05, while Intel was released on 2023-01-03. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $485; no launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Hawk Point, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. This is a newer, more efficient process compared to Intel's approach. The Intel Core i7-13650HX uses Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-HX, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel.

The core count difference stems from architectural design. AMD uses 6 full Zen 4 cores with simultaneous multithreading, yielding 12 threads. Intel uses 14 cores with 20 threads, which includes a hybrid design of performance and efficiency cores, though the exact core type breakdown is not recorded in the database.

Cache architecture differs in both size and distribution. AMD allocates 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with a shared 16 MB L3. Intel allocates 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with a shared 24 MB L3. The larger L3 cache on Intel likely contributes to its strong performance in data-heavy workloads.

PCIe capability is a notable architectural difference. Intel supports PCIe Gen 5, while AMD supports Gen 4. This gives Intel an advantage in bandwidth for compatible devices, though real-world impact depends on peripheral support.

The Intel part features an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not. This allows for overclocking on Intel, provided the motherboard and cooling support it. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, which is a feature absent from the AMD chip.

Process node efficiency differs significantly. The AMD part's 4 nm process is more advanced than Intel's 10 nm, which likely contributes to its lower 45W TDP despite a higher base clock. The Intel part compensates with a higher core count and a larger die at 257 mm² versus 178 mm².

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-13650HX wins in every direct head-to-head comparison recorded, making it the superior choice for compute-intensive tasks. Its biggest advantages are in multi-core rendering, where it leads by 47.1% in Cinebench R23, and in floating-point math, where it leads by 40.1%. Users running video encoding, 3D rendering, scientific simulations, or heavy data processing will see substantial benefits from the Intel part.

Data compression and encryption workloads also strongly favor Intel. The 30.2% lead in compression and 26.8% lead in encryption mean tasks like file archiving, database operations, and secure communications will complete faster on the Intel chip. The 28.9% lead in integer math further reinforces its suitability for general productivity and computational tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240, despite losing all head-to-head tests, still holds a higher average benchmark score of 33,542 versus 33,089 for Intel, and a higher percentile ranking at 84 versus 83. This suggests that in workloads not covered by the head-to-head list, the AMD part performs competitively or better. Its higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz and lower 45W TDP make it an efficient choice for lighter tasks where power consumption matters.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the gap is smallest. Intel leads by only 2.5% in PassMark single-thread tests, meaning everyday application launches, web browsing, and light productivity will feel similar on both. The AMD part's Zen 4 architecture, despite fewer cores, delivers per-thread performance that is nearly on par with Intel's offering.

The AMD part is also the newer release, dated 2025-01-05 versus the Intel's 2023-01-03. This newer platform, combined with the 4 nm process, suggests better power efficiency per unit of performance. For users who prioritize battery life in a mobile workstation or who run a mix of light and moderate tasks, the AMD Ryzen 5 240 may be the more practical daily driver. For those who demand maximum performance in threaded workloads, the Intel Core i7-13650HX is the clear winner.