AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core i9-14901E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the Intel Core i9-14901E wins 14 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 takes a single victory. The margin of Intel's dominance varies dramatically by workload, from narrow single-digit gaps to blowouts exceeding 60 percent.

The largest Intel advantage appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i9-14901E scores 3635 against the Ryzen 5 240's 1742, a delta of -52.1 percent. This means the Intel part delivers more than double the single-threaded rendering performance. The same test in multi-core shows 25753 versus 13013, a -49.5 percent gap, confirming that the Intel processor's advantage scales across both single and multi-threaded Cinebench workloads.

PassMark physics testing shows the most extreme difference: Intel scores 3041, AMD scores 1060, a -65.1 percent delta. Prime number finding follows closely at -63 percent (189 versus 70). These two workloads highlight where the Intel architecture's raw computational throughput pulls far ahead.

Floating-point math also favors Intel heavily, 81089 versus 45301 (-44.1 percent), while integer math shows 112736 versus 73189 (-35.1 percent). PassMark multithread results indicate a -25.2 percent gap (30298 versus 22658), and data encryption shows -14.7 percent (18571 versus 15849). Random string sorting lands at -17.3 percent (39138 versus 32385), and single-thread PassMark shows -15.6 percent (4354 versus 3675).

The closest Intel victory is in data compression, 288777 versus 267963, a -7.2 percent margin. This suggests that while Intel generally dominates, the Ryzen 5 240 remains competitive in compression tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240's sole win comes in PassMark extended instructions, scoring 20201 against Intel's 17249, a +17.1 percent advantage. This is a meaningful result: the AMD part executes certain extended instruction sets more efficiently, despite trailing everywhere else. This single bright spot does little to offset the overall trend, but it signals a specific architectural strength worth examining.

Cinebench R15 tells the same story as R23, with Intel leading multi-core by -19.9 percent (2595 versus 2078) and single-core by -26.2 percent (366 versus 270). The R15 gaps are smaller than R23, suggesting the Intel advantage grows with longer or more demanding rendering loads.

The average benchmark scores place Intel at 37911 versus AMD's 33542, a difference of roughly 13 percent across the entire benchmark suite. Intel's percentile ranking against all CPUs sits at 86, while AMD ranks at 84, a modest separation in overall standing.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows the Intel Core i9-14901E as the clear performance leader across nearly every measured category. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25753 is nearly double the Ryzen 5 240's 13013, and its single-core R23 result of 3635 more than doubles AMD's 1742. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, rendering, physics simulation, or prime-number workloads, the Intel part is the obvious selection based strictly on these numbers.

The Ryzen 5 240 does not win any performance category except extended instructions, where it leads by 17.1 percent. This means the AMD processor is not a general-purpose performance alternative to the Intel in this comparison. Its lower core count (6 versus 8), lower thread count (12 versus 16), and lower boost clock (5.00 GHz versus 5.60 GHz) all align with its consistent benchmark deficits.

However, the database also reveals context beyond raw speed. The Ryzen 5 240 operates at a 45 W TDP versus Intel's 65 W, runs on a 4 nm process versus Intel's 10 nm, and belongs to the mobile segment while Intel targets desktop. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while Intel uses Socket 1700. These differences mean the two processors serve fundamentally different platforms, and the performance gap must be interpreted within that frame.

The Ryzen 5 240 sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the i9-14901E sits at the 86th percentile. Both are high-performing parts globally, but the Intel's margin over AMD in this head-to-head is substantial in absolute terms. The data does not support any scenario where the Ryzen 5 240 outperforms the i9-14901E in general compute, outside of the single extended-instructions test.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14901E wins in all rendering benchmarks (Cinebench R15 and R23, both single and multi-core), all PassMark math workloads (floating-point, integer, prime numbers), physics simulation, multithread throughput, data encryption, data compression, random string sorting, and single-thread PassMark tests. Its largest margins appear in physics (-65.1 percent), prime numbers (-63 percent), and Cinebench R23 single-core (-52.1 percent). These are compute-heavy, instruction-dense workloads where the Intel's 8 cores, 16 threads, and 5.60 GHz boost clock provide decisive advantages.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins exclusively in PassMark extended instructions, with a 17.1 percent margin. This test likely measures specialized instruction set extensions where the Zen 4 architecture in the Hawk Point design demonstrates efficiency. The Ryzen 5 240's 6 cores and 12 threads at up to 5.00 GHz, combined with 16 MB of shared L3 cache, deliver this specific win but cannot compensate for the broader deficits.

For workloads involving heavy AVX or other extended instruction usage, the AMD part shows a measurable edge. For everything else in the recorded benchmark suite, the Intel part leads, often by wide margins. The data suggests that a user with mixed workloads would see consistently higher performance from the Intel, while a user specifically targeting extended-instruction tasks might find the AMD part's advantage relevant.

FAQ

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta in the head-to-head data is PassMark physics, where the Intel Core i9-14901E scores 3041 versus the AMD Ryzen 5 240's 1060, a -65.1 percent difference. Prime number finding is close behind at -63 percent (189 versus 70).

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 240 win any benchmark against the Intel Core i9-14901E?

A: Yes, the AMD part wins PassMark extended instructions, scoring 20201 against Intel's 17249, a +17.1 percent margin. This is its only win among the 15 recorded head-to-head tests.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E scores 25753, nearly double the AMD Ryzen 5 240's 13013, representing a -49.5 percent delta. This is one of the largest gaps in the entire benchmark set.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock at 5.60 GHz versus AMD's 5.00 GHz.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has an average benchmark score of 37911, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 averages 33542. This places Intel at the 86th percentile of all CPUs and AMD at the 84th percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has a TDP of 65 W, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has a TDP of 45 W. The Intel part draws more power, consistent with its higher core count and clock speeds.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core i9-14901E uses Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-R codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel with a 257 mm² die size. Intel's transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD part provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part offers 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel's larger L3 cache (36 MB versus 16 MB) aligns with its higher multi-threaded performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 supports only DDR5, while the Intel Core i9-14901E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses. AMD records a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while Intel's memory bandwidth is not listed. ECC memory support exists only on the Intel part.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. This means Intel offers a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes, while AMD offers more lanes on an older generation.

Integrated graphics differ by vendor. AMD includes the Radeon 760M, while Intel includes UHD Graphics 770. Neither part has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD processor is classified as mobile, while the Intel is desktop. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, and the Intel uses Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part released on 2025-01-05, while the Intel released on 2024-06-30.

Specification Differences

The core count differs: AMD has 6 cores, Intel has 8. Threads differ accordingly: 12 versus 16. Base clocks diverge significantly: AMD runs at 4.30 GHz, Intel at 2.80 GHz. Boost clocks also differ: AMD reaches 5.00 GHz, Intel reaches 5.60 GHz. TDP differs by 20 W: AMD at 45 W, Intel at 65 W.

Sockets are incompatible: AMD uses AMD Socket FP8, Intel uses Intel Socket 1700. Architecture names differ: Zen 4 (Hawk Point) versus Raptor Lake (Raptor Lake-R). Process nodes differ: 4 nm TSMC versus 10 nm Intel. Die sizes differ: 178 mm² for AMD, 257 mm² for Intel.

Cache layouts differ per core and shared: L1 is 64 KB per core for AMD versus 80 KB per core for Intel; L2 is 1 MB per core for AMD versus 2 MB per core for Intel; L3 is 16 MB shared for AMD versus 36 MB shared for Intel. Memory support differs: AMD supports only DDR5, Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5. ECC memory is false for AMD, true for Intel.

PCIe generation and lanes differ: AMD uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 760M versus UHD Graphics 770. Market segments differ: mobile for AMD, desktop for Intel. Transistor counts differ: 25,000 million for AMD, not recorded for Intel. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for AMD at 89.6 GB/s. Release dates differ by roughly six months. Multiplier unlocked is false for both. Part numbers differ: 100-000001727 for AMD, Q49ESRNJH for Intel.