AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 and Intel Core Ultra 5 336H are both mobile processors aimed at similar performance brackets, but the benchmark data reveals they excel in fundamentally different areas. The Intel chip wins 14 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD part takes a single, notable victory. This split suggests that the choice between them hinges on specific workload priorities rather than overall capability. The following analysis breaks down where each processor demonstrates its strengths, how their architectures differ, and what the raw scores imply for real-world use.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is stark. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H dominates in nearly every category that stresses parallel throughput or heavy mathematical computation. Its wins span Cinebench multi-core tests, PassMark’s multithread, physics, floating-point math, data encryption, and prime number finding. The data shows that for rendering, scientific simulation, or any task that can leverage many cores simultaneously, the Intel processor is the clear leader.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240, by contrast, claims victory in exactly one head-to-head test: PassMark’s integer math, where it scores 73189 against Intel’s 62070, a delta of 17.9% in AMD’s favor. This is a significant margin in a specific workload type, suggesting the AMD chip handles integer-heavy operations, such as certain database queries or legacy software calculations, with relative efficiency. Outside of that single metric, Intel’s wins range from narrow to overwhelming. The Intel chip’s data compression score (280340) beats AMD’s (267963) by 4.4%, and its random string sorting (34402) leads by 5.9%. These are modest advantages, indicating that in lighter, less parallel tasks, the gap narrows considerably.

The real story is in the multi-core and floating-point results. Intel’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 23991 versus AMD’s 13013, a difference of 45.8%. Similarly, floating-point math shows Intel at 82415 against AMD’s 45301, a 45% gap. For anyone compiling code, rendering 3D scenes, or running complex physics simulations, these are decisive numbers. The Intel chip also leads in single-thread tests, though by a smaller margin: 8.4% in PassMark single-thread and 48.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core. That Cinebench single-core gap is surprisingly large, suggesting Intel’s architecture extracts more performance per clock in that specific test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split explains much of the behavioral difference. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with a Hawk Point codename. It packs 6 cores and 12 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to boost throughput. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses Panther Lake architecture on Intel’s own 3 nm process, with 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it does not use multithreading to double its thread count. Instead, it offers more physical cores, which is a key factor in its multi-core dominance.

Cache layouts also differ substantially. AMD’s L1 cache is 64 KB per core, while Intel’s is 192 KB per core. The L2 cache is 1 MB per core on AMD versus 2.5 MB per core on Intel. The shared L3 cache is 16 MB on the AMD chip and 18 MB on the Intel chip. These larger per-core caches on Intel likely contribute to its strong single-thread performance and its ability to handle data-heavy tasks like compression and encryption. The process node difference (4 nm for AMD, 3 nm for Intel) also gives Intel a density advantage, allowing it to fit more cores into a similar power envelope.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR5, but Intel also supports LPDDR5X, offering more flexibility for system designers. The memory bandwidth figures reflect this: Intel lists 115.2 GB/s, while AMD lists 89.6 GB/s. That 28.6% bandwidth advantage on Intel helps in memory-intensive workloads. PCIe support also differs, with AMD offering Gen 4 with 20 lanes and Intel offering Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Gen 5 is faster per lane, but AMD’s higher lane count could benefit systems with multiple expansion devices. Integrated graphics differ as well: AMD uses Radeon 760M, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics. Neither is benchmarked in the data, so their comparative performance is not quantified here.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Walking through the largest wins reveals the scale of Intel’s advantage. The most extreme delta is in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where Intel scores 299 against AMD’s 70, a 76.6% gap. This test is highly sensitive to core count and integer arithmetic, and Intel’s 16 cores crush AMD’s 6. The physics test shows a similar pattern: Intel at 2682 versus AMD at 1060, a 60.5% gap. Physics simulations often scale with core count, so this result aligns with the architectural difference.

Cinebench R23 multi-core is the most telling for professional workloads. Intel’s 23991 is 45.8% ahead of AMD’s 13013. This is not a marginal edge; it is a generational leap in rendering performance. Cinebench R23 single-core shows Intel at 3387 versus AMD’s 1742, a 48.6% delta. This is unusual because single-core tests typically show smaller gaps between architectures. The data implies Intel’s Panther Lake cores have a substantial instructions-per-clock advantage over Zen 4 in this benchmark, or that the boost clock behavior differs significantly.

PassMark’s multithread test has Intel at 28545 and AMD at 22658, a 20.6% gap. This is smaller than Cinebench’s multi-core delta, suggesting that PassMark’s workload is less sensitive to core count or that AMD’s threading implementation helps it catch up. Data encryption shows Intel at 21291 versus AMD’s 15849, a 25.6% gap. Encryption often benefits from dedicated instructions and cache efficiency, both areas where Intel appears stronger. Extended instructions have Intel at 24542 versus AMD’s 20201, a 17.7% gap, indicating Intel handles AVX-style workloads better.

The only AMD win, integer math at 73189 versus Intel’s 62070, is a 17.9% margin. This is a substantial lead in a core CPU operation. Integer math is fundamental to general computing, so this result suggests AMD’s Zen 4 cores are more efficient at basic arithmetic operations, even if they lose in more complex or parallel tasks. The single-thread PassMark scores are close: Intel at 4013, AMD at 3675, an 8.4% gap. This aligns with the idea that for everyday, lightly threaded tasks, the two processors are much closer than the Cinebench single-core test implies.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores. Intel does not use multithreading, so it has 16 threads, while AMD has 12 threads from its 6 cores.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the data?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where Intel scores 299 against AMD’s 70, a 76.6% difference in Intel’s favor.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins PassMark’s integer math test, scoring 73189 versus Intel’s 62070, a 17.9% advantage.

Q: How do the single-thread scores compare?

A: Intel leads in PassMark single-thread (4013 versus 3675, an 8.4% gap) and in Cinebench R23 single-core (3387 versus 1742, a 48.6% gap). The Cinebench gap is much larger than the PassMark gap.

Q: What are the differences in memory bandwidth?

A: Intel lists 115.2 GB/s, while AMD lists 89.6 GB/s. Intel also supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5, while AMD supports only DDR5.

Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: Intel uses a 3 nm process, while AMD uses a 4 nm process. Intel’s process is smaller, allowing for more cores in the same physical space.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The core counts are 6 for AMD and 16 for Intel. Thread counts are 12 and 16, respectively. Base clock speeds are 4.30 GHz for AMD and 1.90 GHz for Intel, while boost clocks are 5.00 GHz and 4.60 GHz. The TDP is 45 watts for AMD and 25 watts for Intel, meaning AMD is rated for a higher power draw. Sockets are AMD Socket FP8 and Intel BGA 2540. The architectures are Zen 4 (Hawk Point) and Panther Lake, with process nodes of 4 nm and 3 nm. L1 cache is 64 KB per core on AMD versus 192 KB per core on Intel. L2 cache is 1 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache is 16 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 for AMD and DDR5 plus LPDDR5X for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 4 with 20 lanes for AMD and Gen 5 with 12 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics are Radeon 760M versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. Release dates are January 5, 2025 for AMD and January 4, 2026 for Intel.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. For multi-threaded, parallel tasks such as 3D rendering, video encoding, physics simulation, and data encryption, the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the superior choice. Its 16 physical cores and higher memory bandwidth deliver wins of 20% to 76% across most heavy workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result alone, with Intel at 23991 versus AMD’s 13013, makes Intel the obvious pick for content creation or scientific computing.

For integer-heavy operations, the AMD Ryzen 5 240 holds a definitive edge. Its 17.9% win in PassMark integer math indicates that software relying on basic arithmetic, such as certain legacy applications or database processing, will run more efficiently on the AMD chip. Additionally, the AMD processor’s lower TDP of 45 watts versus Intel’s 25 watts is notable, though the data does not include power consumption measurements, so this should not be interpreted as a performance-per-watt verdict.

The single-thread results are mixed. PassMark shows a modest 8.4% Intel lead, which suggests everyday desktop tasks are roughly comparable. However, Cinebench R23 single-core shows a massive 48.6% Intel advantage, which could indicate that certain single-threaded professional tools will run significantly faster on Intel. The average benchmark scores reflect this overall trend: Intel’s average is 34485, while AMD’s is 33542, a 2.8% difference in Intel’s favor. Both processors sit at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier.

The verdict is straightforward. If the primary workload is parallel and compute-heavy, the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the stronger choice by a wide margin. If the workload is dominated by integer math or if the user prioritizes the AMD platform’s specific features, the Ryzen 5 240 remains competitive in that niche. The 14-to-1 win count in the head-to-head data makes Intel the default recommendation for most users, but the AMD chip’s singular victory shows it is not without its own strengths.