AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, which wins all 15 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The average benchmark score of 44,466 places the Intel part at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 averages 33,542 and sits at the 84th percentile. This is a substantial overall gap, roughly 32.6% in favor of the Intel processor based on the aggregate scores.

The largest single-test advantage for the Intel chip appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The X9 388H scores 358 versus 70 for the Ryzen 5 240, a delta of -80.4% from the AMD side. This specific workload, which is heavily dependent on integer arithmetic and core count, exposes the widest performance canyon between these two mobile processors.

PassMark physics testing shows another decisive margin. The Intel processor records 3,226 points against 1,060 for the AMD part, a -67.1% difference. Physics simulations often scale with core count and memory bandwidth, both areas where the Intel chip holds clear advantages in the recorded specifications.

Floating-point math follows a similar pattern. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H posts 112,550 points, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 manages 45,301, a -59.8% gap. This workload benefits from the Intel processor's 16 cores and the higher memory bandwidth available to it.

The Cinebench R23 multi-core test, a widely used render benchmark, shows the Intel chip at 18,911 versus 13,013 for the AMD part, a -31.2% difference. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the scores are 2,955 and 2,078 respectively, a -29.7% gap. These render workloads scale across threads, and the Intel processor's 16 threads (on 16 cores) give it a structural edge over the AMD's 12 threads (on 6 cores).

Single-core performance favors Intel as well, though by narrower margins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,200.5 for Intel versus 1,742 for AMD, a -20.8% delta. PassMark single-thread records 4,280 against 3,675, a -14.1% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 309.5 versus 270, a -12.8% difference. The boost clock difference is minor (5.10 GHz versus 5.00 GHz), so the single-core advantage comes from architectural efficiency rather than raw clock speed.

Memory-sensitive workloads reinforce the Intel lead. PassMark data compression shows 361,763 for Intel versus 267,963 for AMD, a -25.9% gap. Data encryption shows 28,490 versus 15,849, a -44.4% delta. Extended instructions (SIMD-style workloads) record 29,943 versus 20,201, a -32.5% difference. Random string sorting shows 44,010 versus 32,385, a -26.4% gap. Integer math posts 90,882 versus 73,189, a -19.5% margin.

The Intel processor's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D at -0.2% delta, the Intel Core i9-13950HX at 0.3%, the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 at 0.4%, and the Intel Core i5-13600 at 0.5%. This places the X9 388H in desktop-tier company despite being a mobile part. The AMD Ryzen 5 240, by contrast, sits closest to the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H at 0% delta, the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS at -0.4%, the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX at -0.4%, and the Intel Core i5-12600HX at 0.5%. The two chips occupy different performance strata entirely.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins every multi-core test. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 18,911 for Intel versus 13,013 for AMD, and PassMark multithread shows 36,811 versus 22,658.

Q: How large is the single-core gap between the two processors?

A: The Intel part leads in all single-core tests, with deltas ranging from -12.8% in Cinebench R15 to -20.8% in Cinebench R23. PassMark single-thread shows a -14.1% gap.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference in any single test?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest delta at -80.4%, with Intel scoring 358 against AMD's 70.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the AMD Ryzen 5 240 and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H have ECC memory support marked as false in the database.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed with a production status of Active.

Q: How do the two processors compare in the CPU percentile rankings?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 sits at the 84th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses Panther Lake architecture under the same codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The process node difference of 4 nm versus 3 nm gives Intel a density and efficiency advantage in theory, though the actual power envelopes tell a more complex story.

Core counts differ substantially. The AMD chip has 6 cores and 12 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Intel chip has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning no hyperthreading on this part. Despite having more physical cores, the Intel processor's thread count advantage over the AMD part is only 16 versus 12.

Cache hierarchies reflect the architectural differences. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has both more cache per core and more total shared cache.

The AMD processor integrates Radeon 760M graphics, while the Intel chip uses Arc B390 graphics. Both are integrated solutions for mobile platforms. The AMD chip has no 3D V-Cache option listed, and neither does the Intel part.

Transistor counts and die sizes are recorded for the AMD part (25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die) but are not listed for the Intel processor. The AMD's memory support is DDR5 while the Intel supports LPDDR5X, and the measured memory bandwidth shows 89.6 GB/s for AMD versus 153.6 GB/s for Intel. That bandwidth gap helps explain the Intel advantage in data compression and encryption tests.

PCIe support differs by generation and lane count. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Fewer lanes but a newer standard means the Intel platform targets different connectivity priorities.

Specification Differences

The base clock rates differ markedly. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 runs at 4.30 GHz base, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H runs at 2.10 GHz base. Boost clocks are nearly identical: 5.00 GHz for AMD versus 5.10 GHz for Intel.

Thermal design power shows a notable inversion. The AMD part is rated at 45 W TDP, while the Intel part is rated at 25 W TDP. The lower TDP on the higher-performing Intel chip suggests the 3 nm process delivers significant efficiency gains, though TDP alone does not capture sustained power behavior under load.

Sockets are different: AMD uses Socket FP8, Intel uses BGA 2540. Neither is socketed for user upgrades in the traditional desktop sense; both are mobile platform packages.

Memory support differs by type: DDR5 for AMD, LPDDR5X for Intel. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Memory bandwidth is recorded at 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 153.6 GB/s for Intel, a 71.4% advantage for the Intel part.

L1 and L2 cache per core are larger on the Intel chip: 192 KB versus 64 KB for L1, and 3 MB versus 1 MB for L2. Shared L3 is 18 MB on Intel versus 16 MB on AMD.

PCIe lanes: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 760M versus Arc B390.

Release dates are about one year apart: the AMD Ryzen 5 240 launched in January 2025, the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H in January 2026. Both processors are marked as active production parts. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear split between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with an average score of 44,466 versus 33,542 for the AMD Ryzen 5 240. The Intel part also claims a higher CPU percentile rank at 88 versus 84.

The Intel processor is the stronger choice for multi-threaded workloads. Its 16 cores, 18 MB of shared L3, and 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth produce decisive margins in rendering, physics, and floating-point math. The PassMark physics score of 3,226 versus 1,060 and the floating-point score of 112,550 versus 45,301 are the clearest examples of this advantage.

The AMD processor has one structural advantage in the recorded data: a 45 W TDP versus 25 W for Intel. The higher power envelope on the AMD part does not translate into higher performance in any recorded test, which makes the Intel chip the more efficient performer based on the benchmark results. The AMD's higher base clock of 4.30 GHz versus 2.10 GHz also does not overcome the Intel's architectural and core-count advantages.

For buyers who prioritize raw performance across rendering, physics simulation, encryption, and math-heavy workloads, the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the clear choice from this data. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 remains a capable mobile processor with 12 threads and a competitive single-core boost clock of 5.00 GHz, but it does not match the Intel part in any measured category. The database shows no workload where the AMD chip comes out ahead, making the verdict unambiguous for users who need maximum throughput in a mobile package.