AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every single recorded head-to-head test, 15 wins to 0 for the AMD Ryzen 5 240. The largest gaps appear in integer-heavy and floating-point workloads, while the smallest gaps show up in single-threaded Cinebench tests.

Starting with rendering performance, the Intel part delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20547 against the AMD's 13013, a delta of 36.7 percent. The single-core R23 result is closer but still favors Intel: 2071.5 versus 1742, a 15.9 percent gap. The older Cinebench R15 test shows the same pattern, with Intel leading multi-core 3223 to 2078 (35.5 percent) and single-core 303.5 to 270 (11 percent).

PassMark's math workloads reveal extreme separation. The floating-point math test shows Intel at 108527 versus AMD's 45301, a 58.3 percent deficit for the Ryzen part. Find prime numbers is even more lopsided: Intel scores 341 while AMD manages just 70, a 79.5 percent gap. Integer math is comparatively close, with Intel at 87284 against 73189, a 16.1 percent advantage.

Data processing tests follow the same trend. Data compression favors Intel 352365 to 267963, a 24 percent lead. Data encryption shows a 41.6 percent gap, with Intel at 27150 versus AMD's 15849. Random string sorting lands at a 23.1 percent difference, Intel at 42135 and AMD at 32385.

The multi-threaded PassMark score confirms the overall picture: Intel at 35399, AMD at 22658, a 36 percent gap. The physics test is one of the more dramatic splits, Intel at 3028 versus AMD's 1060, a 65 percent deficit. Extended instructions show Intel ahead 29138 to 20201, a 30.7 percent gap. Single-thread PassMark results are the closest overall, with Intel at 4218 and AMD at 3675, a 12.9 percent difference.

The average benchmark score in the database places the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H at 43210, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 sits at 33542. That places the Intel part in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 84th percentile for the AMD chip.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20547 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 scores 13013, giving Intel a 36.7 percent advantage.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 2071.5 and AMD scores 1742, a 15.9 percent difference. PassMark single-thread shows Intel at 4218 and AMD at 3675, a 12.9 percent gap.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The AMD part supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which CPU uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses a 3 nm process node from Intel. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare to each CPU's nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240's average score of 33542 sits within 0.5 percent of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS, and AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX, and 0.5 percent ahead of the Intel Core i5-12600HX. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H's average of 43210 is within 0.9 percent of the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, Intel Core i9-12900, and Intel Core i9-12900KF.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every benchmark category recorded. The Ryzen 5 240 does not hold a single recorded victory across the 15 head-to-head tests.

For heavily parallel workloads, the Intel part is decisively ahead. Cinebench R23 multi-core and PassMark multi-thread both show roughly 36 percent leads. The physics test, which often scales with core count, shows Intel ahead by 65 percent. The 16-core Intel processor with 16 threads outperforms the 6-core, 12-thread AMD chip by a wide margin in these scenarios.

For floating-point and prime-number calculations, the Intel advantage is even larger. Floating-point math shows a 58.3 percent gap, and find prime numbers shows a 79.5 percent gap. These results indicate the Intel architecture handles mathematically intensive workloads far more efficiently.

The closest contests are in single-threaded performance. The Cinebench R23 single-core gap of 15.9 percent and PassMark single-thread gap of 12.9 percent suggest the AMD Zen 4 core is competitive on a per-thread basis, though still behind. Data compression, at 24 percent, and random string sorting, at 23.1 percent, represent mid-range gaps where the Intel chip leads but not by the extreme margins seen in math tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 4.30 GHz for AMD and 2.10 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz for AMD and 4.90 GHz for Intel.

Thermal design power differs substantially: the AMD part is rated at 45 W, while the Intel part is rated at 25 W. The AMD chip uses the AMD Socket FP8, and the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 2540.

Cache configurations diverge completely. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3.

Memory support shows the Intel part accepting both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the AMD part is listed for DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but bandwidth differs: 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 115.2 GB/s for Intel.

PCI Express support differs by generation and lane count. The AMD chip uses Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The Intel chip uses Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics are different as well: AMD uses Radeon 760M, and Intel uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as active production parts for the mobile market segment.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture, also its codename, manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process. The Intel part belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation, while the AMD part is a Ryzen 5 generation chip.

Transistor counts and die sizes are recorded only for the AMD part: 25,000 million transistors and a 178 mm² die. No comparable figures exist in the database for the Intel processor.

The core structure differences are substantial. The Intel part has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The AMD part has 6 cores and 12 threads, meaning each core supports two threads. Intel's L1 and L2 caches are larger per core, and its shared L3 cache is 2 MB larger.

The process node difference of 3 nm versus 4 nm, combined with the Intel part's lower 25 W TDP against AMD's 45 W TDP, indicates the Intel chip achieves its higher performance within a lower thermal envelope. Memory bandwidth is 28.7 percent higher on the Intel part, and it supports additional memory types.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H as the outright performance leader. Across all 15 head-to-head benchmarks, the Intel processor wins every test, making the choice straightforward for users who prioritize raw benchmark scores.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 does hold advantages in specification areas that may matter for certain use cases. It has a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz compared to 4.90 GHz, though its base clock advantage of 4.30 GHz versus 2.10 GHz is large. It also provides more PCI Express lanes at 20 Gen 4 lanes versus 12 Gen 5 lanes. For users who need many Gen 4 devices, the AMD part offers more lane count, while the Intel part offers a newer PCI Express generation.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the choice for compute-heavy workloads. Its 65 percent lead in physics, 58.3 percent lead in floating-point math, and 79.5 percent lead in prime-number finding indicate a major architectural advantage in scientific and mathematical tasks. The 36 percent leads in both Cinebench R23 multi-core and PassMark multi-thread make it the stronger option for rendering and content creation.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240, with its 6-core, 12-thread configuration and 16 MB of L3 cache, presents a more modest profile. Its average benchmark score of 33542 places it in the 84th percentile, a respectable position, but the Intel part's 43210 average and 88th percentile standing put it in a higher tier. The closest recorded contest is single-thread PassMark, where the AMD chip trails by only 12.9 percent, suggesting that lightly threaded applications would show a smaller real-world difference.

Users selecting a processor from the database should default to the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H for any workload that scales with cores, threads, or math throughput. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 remains viable for scenarios where its higher boost clock, larger PCI Express lane count, or AMD-specific platform features are relevant, but the benchmark record shows no performance category where it leads.