AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 and Intel Core Ultra X7 368H represent two distinct approaches to mobile processing, and the benchmark data shows a decisive advantage for the Intel part across every recorded workload. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins all 15 head-to-head comparisons in the database, with the largest margins appearing in heavily threaded and floating-point tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel part scores 28,221 against the AMD's 13,013, a delta of 53.9% in favor of Intel. This is a massive separation for mobile processors and indicates that the Intel chip sustains high output across all cores. The single-core R23 result shows a similar story: Intel scores 3,984 versus AMD's 1,742, a 56.3% advantage. Older Cinebench R15 numbers confirm the trend, with Intel leading multi-core 2,844 to 2,078 (26.9%) and single-core 401 to 270 (32.7%).

The PassMark suite reinforces the pattern. In floating-point math, Intel scores 105,681 against AMD's 45,301, a 57.1% lead. Physics simulation shows Intel at 2,857 versus AMD's 1,060, a 62.9% gap. The prime number search workload is the largest single delta: Intel scores 321, AMD scores 70, leaving Intel ahead by 78.2%. Data encryption also favors Intel heavily, 25,228 versus 15,849, a 37.2% margin.

The closest contest is single-thread performance. PassMark single-thread shows Intel at 4,005 and AMD at 3,675, an 8.2% lead for Intel. This smaller gap suggests that per-core architecture differences are less dramatic than the core-count and throughput differences. Data compression is also relatively tight: Intel at 312,927 versus AMD at 267,963, a 14.4% margin. Integer math sits at 16.9% in Intel's favor (88,083 versus 73,189), and random string sorting shows a 15% gap (38,093 versus 32,385).

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 averages 33,542, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H averages 40,518, a difference of roughly 20.8%. The AMD part sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel part reaches the 87th percentile. Every recorded benchmark, from Cinebench to PassMark, lands in favor of the Intel chip, with no counter-example in the dataset.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different silicon. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It packs 25,000 million transistors onto a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses Panther Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process by Intel, though the database does not record transistor count or die size for this part.

Core configuration differs sharply. The AMD chip has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel chip has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part does not use simultaneous multithreading, so its thread count equals its core count. The AMD part relies on SMT to double its threads. Clock speeds are also structured differently: AMD lists a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost of 5.00 GHz, while Intel lists a base of 2.00 GHz and a boost of 5.00 GHz. The boost clocks match, but the AMD chip runs far higher at base.

Cache hierarchies are distinct. The AMD processor allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel processor allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Both use dual-channel memory, but the types differ: AMD supports DDR5, while Intel supports LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth strongly favors Intel: 153.6 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD.

PCIe connectivity also diverges. The AMD part offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part offers PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The AMD chip provides more lanes, but the Intel chip uses a newer generation. Integrated graphics are different as well: AMD uses the Radeon 760M, while Intel uses the Arc B390. Both parts are mobile segments, active in production, with unlocked multipliers disabled.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in every category measured. The largest advantage, 78.2%, appears in the prime number search workload, which is highly sensitive to integer throughput and branch handling. The floating-point math workload, with a 57.1% lead, suggests the Intel part handles scientific and analytical calculations with greater efficiency. Physics simulation, at 62.9% ahead, indicates stronger sustained multi-core performance for simulation tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not win any recorded benchmark, but its closest margins offer some context. In single-thread PassMark, the Intel lead is only 8.2%, meaning the AMD chip's per-core architecture remains competitive in lightly threaded scenarios. Data compression, with a 14.4% gap, is another area where the AMD chip is relatively close. The AMD part also runs at a much higher base clock (4.30 GHz versus 2.00 GHz), which may help in short bursts of single-core work, though the benchmark data does not show a win in any such test.

The average score comparison places the Intel chip about 20% higher overall. The percentile ranking difference, 87 versus 84, is modest given the size of the individual benchmark wins. This suggests that the AMD chip's nearest rivals in the database, such as the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H (average score 33,537, with a 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (average score 33,667, -0.4% delta), are much closer to the AMD Ryzen 5 240 than the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 7 253PE (average score 40,557, -0.1% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (average score 40,431, 0.2% delta), which sit in a higher performance band entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H dominates multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28,221 against the AMD Ryzen 5 240's 13,013, a 53.9% advantage.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The Intel part leads in single-core as well, but by a smaller margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows Intel at 3,984 versus AMD at 1,742, a 56.3% gap. PassMark single-thread shows a tighter 8.2% lead for Intel (4,005 versus 3,675).

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 Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which chip has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H offers 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 offers 89.6 GB/s. Intel uses LPDDR5X memory, AMD uses DDR5.

Q: What process nodes are used for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is built on a 3 nm process by Intel.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the AMD Ryzen 5 240 and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H have ECC memory support set to false in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 240 | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base clock | 4.30 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 178 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 16 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 760M | Arc B390 |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-01-04 |

| Part number | 100-000001727 | SA4R7Q9EJ |