AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear performance leader in this matchup. Across the 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded in the database, the Intel part wins all 15. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not claim a single benchmark victory. The Intel chip's average benchmark score of 41263 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD chip's average score of 33542 places it in the 84th percentile. For workloads that rely on multi-threaded throughput, single-thread responsiveness, or memory bandwidth, the data consistently favors Intel. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 remains a functional mobile processor with its own architectural identity, but the recorded measurements show no scenario where it outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H.

The Ryzen 5 240 should be considered only when the platform constraints of the AMD Socket FP8 design are required, or when the lower core count is acceptable for lighter tasks. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, with 16 cores versus 6, delivers more than double the multi-core performance in several tests, and its single-core results are also substantially higher. There is no benchmark category where the AMD part leads, so the verdict is straightforward: the Intel chip is the superior choice for any performance-oriented workload.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses the Zen 4 architecture on the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's own 3 nm process. It contains 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel part has a higher core count but does not support simultaneous multithreading, matching threads to cores at 16.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The AMD chip provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Intel design offers larger per-core caches and a slightly larger L3 pool. The process node difference (3 nm versus 4 nm) gives Intel a density and efficiency advantage in theory, though the AMD chip's higher base clock (4.30 GHz versus 2.00 GHz) suggests a different clock strategy. The Intel chip's TDP is 25 watts, while the AMD chip's TDP is 45 watts, indicating that the Intel part achieves its performance at a lower rated power draw.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD chip supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part's higher memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s) aligns with its broader core count. PCIe connectivity differs as well: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics differ, with AMD using Radeon 760M and Intel using Xe3 Graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows no wins for the AMD Ryzen 5 240 in any of the 15 benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every recorded test, making the use-case split entirely one-sided. For multi-threaded rendering, the Intel chip's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28477 versus 13013 for AMD shows a 54.3% advantage. For single-threaded tasks, the Intel chip's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4020 versus 1742 shows a 56.7% advantage. In PassMark integer math, the Intel score of 83695 versus 73189 is a 12.6% lead, which is the narrowest gap in the entire comparison but still an Intel win.

The AMD part's closest performance comes in integer math and single-thread tests where its high boost clock helps. The Intel chip leads by 9.1% in PassMark single-thread (4043 versus 3675) and by 12.6% in integer math. In floating-point math, the Intel advantage expands to 56.3% (103615 versus 45301). In data encryption, Intel leads by 38.7% (25845 versus 15849). The pattern is consistent: Intel wins every category, with the largest margins in floating-point, prime number finding, and physics tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 28477 versus 13013 for AMD, a 54.3% difference. In PassMark multithread, Intel scores 33429 versus 22658, a 32.2% difference.

Q: Does the AMD chip win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The head-to-head data records 15 benchmark comparisons, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 15. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 records 0 wins.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 4020 versus 1742 for AMD, a 56.7% lead. In PassMark single-thread, Intel scores 4043 versus 3675, a 9.1% lead.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 supports 89.6 GB/s.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 watts. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has a TDP of 45 watts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in the comparison appears in PassMark find prime numbers. The Intel chip scores 326, while the AMD chip scores 70, giving Intel a 78.5% advantage. This test heavily favors the Intel architecture's core count and cache design. The second-largest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where Intel's 4020 beats AMD's 1742 by 56.7%. The third-largest margin is in PassMark floating-point math, where Intel's 103615 beats AMD's 45301 by 56.3%.

The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows Intel at 28477 versus AMD at 13013, a 54.3% difference. This is the most direct measure of all-core rendering performance, and the 16-core Intel design overwhelms the 6-core AMD design. The PassMark physics test shows Intel at 2880 versus AMD at 1060, a 63.2% advantage. Data encryption shows Intel at 25845 versus AMD at 15849, a 38.7% lead. Data compression shows Intel at 327455 versus AMD at 267963, an 18.2% lead.

The narrowest margins appear in tests that rely on raw clock speed rather than core count. PassMark integer math has Intel at 83695 versus AMD at 73189, a 12.6% lead. PassMark single-thread has Intel at 4043 versus AMD at 3675, a 9.1% lead. The PassMark random string sorting test shows Intel at 39814 versus AMD at 32385, an 18.7% lead. Extended instructions show Intel at 26901 versus AMD at 20201, a 24.9% lead. The Cinebench R15 tests show Intel leading by 27.6% in multi-core (2870 versus 2078) and 33.3% in single-core (405 versus 270).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses AMD Socket FP8 and the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540 and the Panther Lake architecture with the same codename. The AMD chip is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 25,000 million transistors and a die size of 178 mm². The Intel chip is built on a 3 nm process at Intel with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Core and thread counts differ: AMD has 6 cores and 12 threads, Intel has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ: AMD at 4.30 GHz, Intel at 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks differ: AMD at 5.00 GHz, Intel at 4.80 GHz. TDP differs: AMD at 45 watts, Intel at 25 watts. Cache sizes differ across all levels: AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB L3 shared. Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB L3 shared.

Memory support differs: AMD supports only DDR5, while Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth differs: AMD at 89.6 GB/s, Intel at 115.2 GB/s. PCIe support differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: AMD uses Radeon 760M, Intel uses Xe3 Graphics. Neither processor supports ECC memory. Both are locked multipliers and both target the mobile market segment. Release dates differ by roughly one year, with AMD dated 2025-01-05 and Intel dated 2026-01-04. Part numbers are distinct: 100-000001727 for AMD and SA4R9Q9EL for Intel.