AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Xeon 6353P Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6353P and AMD Ryzen 5 240 occupy the same performance percentile (84th), yet they are engineered for entirely different worlds. The Xeon is a server/workstation part on Intel Socket 1700, while the Ryzen is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8. Despite the Ryzen’s newer 4 nm process and higher base clock, the Xeon dominates the majority of benchmark comparisons, winning 12 of 15 head-to-head tests. The data reveals a clear split: Intel leads in raw compute and multi-core throughput, while AMD counters in specific instruction-level and memory-sensitive workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided victory for the Intel Xeon 6353P comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 22058 against the Ryzen 5 240’s 13013—a 69.5% advantage. The single-core gap is even more pronounced in percentage terms: 3114 vs 1742, a 78.8% delta. These are not marginal wins; they represent a generational gulf in sustained workload performance. The Xeon also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (2223 vs 2078, +7%) and single-core (313 vs 270, +15.9%).

In PassMark suites, Intel’s lead persists but varies by workload. The Xeon is 81.4% faster in find prime numbers (127 vs 70), 74.1% faster in physics (1845 vs 1060), and 40.2% faster in floating point math (63509 vs 45301). Integer math goes to Intel by 18.6% (86836 vs 73189), and multithread by 14.5% (25951 vs 22658). Single-thread results repeat the Cinebench pattern: 4226 vs 3675, a 15% win for Intel.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins three tests, all in PassMark. Its largest margin is in extended instructions (20201 vs 18311, +9.4% for AMD). Data encryption is a 3.9% win (15849 vs 15228), and random string sorting goes to AMD by 3.6% (32385 vs 31226). Data compression is close, with Intel ahead by only 6.6% (285581 vs 267963)—the Xeon’s smallest winning margin. These three AMD wins point to specialized instruction handling and memory access patterns rather than general compute strength.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and design philosophies. Intel’s Xeon 6353P uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, built in-house by Intel. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The die measures 257 mm². AMD’s Ryzen 5 240 uses Zen 4 (Hawk Point) on TSMC’s 4 nm node, with 6 cores and 12 threads. Its base clock is much higher at 4.30 GHz, but boost tops out at 5.00 GHz. The smaller 178 mm² die contains 25,000 million transistors.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. Intel allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. AMD uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The Xeon’s larger per-core caches and bigger L3 pool contribute to its multi-core dominance. Memory support diverges: the Xeon handles both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ryzen supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but AMD lists a specific memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s; Intel does not provide a figure.

PCIe connectivity is another split. The Xeon offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes. Intel includes ECC memory support; AMD does not. The Ryzen integrates Radeon 760M graphics, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Process node and foundry differences—10 nm Intel vs 4 nm TSMC—explain part of the power and efficiency gap, though the Xeon’s higher TDP (65W vs 45W) reflects its server-oriented design.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6353P is the clear choice for compute-heavy, multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22058 is 69.5% ahead of the Ryzen, and it wins every CPU-bound test except three specialized PassMark categories. Physics simulation (74.1% lead), prime number finding (81.4% lead), and floating point math (40.2% lead) all favor Intel. For scientific computing, rendering, or any task that scales with cores and cache, the Xeon’s 8 cores, 16 threads, and 24 MB L3 provide a decisive edge. Its single-thread performance is also superior—15% ahead in PassMark and 78.8% ahead in Cinebench R23—meaning it wins even lightly threaded tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins where instruction-level efficiency and memory throughput matter more than raw core count. Extended instructions (+9.4%) and data encryption (+3.9%) suggest the Zen 4 architecture handles complex instruction streams and cryptographic workloads more efficiently. Random string sorting (+3.6%) points to memory access patterns that benefit from the Ryzen’s design, despite its smaller 16 MB L3 and lower 89.6 GB/s bandwidth figure. Data compression is nearly a tie, with Intel ahead only 6.6%, indicating AMD is competitive in this area. For mobile or power-constrained environments, the Ryzen’s 45W TDP and integrated graphics make it a viable all-in-one solution, though its benchmark scores lag behind the Xeon in most categories.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6353P wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 22058 vs 13013 for the AMD Ryzen 5 240, a 69.5% delta.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 240 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins three PassMark tests: extended instructions (20201 vs 18311), data encryption (15849 vs 15228), and random string sorting (32385 vs 31226).

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Xeon 6353P has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon 6353P supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not list ECC support.

Q: How do their single-thread performances compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6353P is faster in single-thread tests. It scores 4226 in PassMark single-thread vs 3675 for the AMD Ryzen 5 240, a 15% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the delta is 78.8% (3114 vs 1742).

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon 6353P uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon 6353P | AMD Ryzen 5 240 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket FP8 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 4 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 178 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 25,000 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Radeon 760M |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-02-23 | 2025-01-05 |

| Launch MSRP | $426 | Not listed |