AMD Ryzen 5 2400G vs Intel Core i7-3840QM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G across all shared benchmark tests. The widest margin appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where AMD scores 155.65 against Intel's 70, a delta of 122.4% in AMD's favor. This is a particularly striking result because single-core performance is often considered a stronghold for Intel architectures, yet the Ryzen 5 2400G more than doubles the older Ivy Bridge part in this test.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD processor records 846.5 versus 498 for the Intel Core i7-3840QM, representing a 70% advantage. Both chips feature 4 cores and 8 threads, so this gap reflects architectural efficiency and clock behavior rather than any core-count difference. The Ryzen 5 2400G operates with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost up to 3.90 GHz, while the Intel part sits lower at 2.80 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. Even accounting for the boost clocks, the AMD chip leads by 0.10 GHz, but the benchmark delta is far larger than that small frequency gap would suggest, pointing to generation-to-generation IPC improvements.

Geekbench results follow the same pattern. In multi-core, AMD scores 3750 against Intel's 2111, a 77.6% lead. In single-core, AMD posts 1003 versus 628, a 59.7% advantage. The multi-core Geekbench delta is actually larger than the Cinebench R15 multi-core delta, indicating that the Ryzen 5 2400G scales particularly well under the Geekbench workload mix. The single-core Geekbench gap, while still substantial, is narrower than the Cinebench R15 single-core gap, which suggests workload-specific sensitivity in how each architecture handles single-threaded tasks.

The overall benchmark average tells a similar story. The Ryzen 5 2400G holds an average benchmark score of 1439, while the Core i7-3840QM averages 1416. Interestingly, both processors sit at the 37th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same relative position in the overall distribution despite the head-to-head deltas. This occurs because the Ryzen 5 2400G's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-4712HQ at 1436 (delta 0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 3 2200GE at 1444 (delta -0.4%), the Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5 at 1446 (delta -0.4%), and the Intel Core i7-2600K at 1433 (delta 0.5%). The Core i7-3840QM's nearest rivals are clustered even tighter: the AMD Ryzen 7 2700U at 1415 (delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 at 1415 (delta 0.1%), the Intel Core i5-4460 at 1415 (delta 0.1%), and the Intel Core i7-2700K at 1419 (delta -0.2%). Both CPUs essentially trade places with their immediate competitors within a fraction of a percent, explaining the shared 37th percentile.

The head-to-head table records 4 wins for the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and 0 for the Intel Core i7-3840QM. No test in the shared set favors the Intel part. This is a comprehensive result, but it must be interpreted with the caveat that the Intel chip is a mobile processor from 2012, while the AMD chip is a desktop processor from 2018. The six-year gap in release dates (2012-09-02 for Intel, 2018-02-11 for AMD) encompasses multiple architectural generations.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R15 score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G records 155.65, which is 122.4% higher than the Intel Core i7-3840QM's 70.

Q: How much faster is the AMD chip in Geekbench multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G scores 3750 versus 2111 for the Intel Core i7-3840QM, a 77.6% advantage.

Q: Do both processors share the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads, so the benchmark differences are not due to core count.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G averages 1439, and the Intel Core i7-3840QM averages 1416. Both sit at the 37th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-3840QM boosts to 3.80 GHz.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G wins 4 tests, and the Intel Core i7-3840QM wins 0.

Where Each One Wins

The data yields only one direction for wins: the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G dominates every shared benchmark. For users prioritizing multi-threaded workloads such as video rendering or compilation, the Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 846.5 versus 498 gives AMD a 70% edge. For single-threaded responsiveness in everyday applications, the Geekbench single-core score of 1003 versus 628 represents a 59.7% advantage. The Cinebench R15 single-core result of 155.65 versus 70, a 122.4% gap, further cements the AMD chip as the stronger choice for lightly threaded tasks.

The Intel Core i7-3840QM does not win any head-to-head test. However, its role as a mobile processor with a 45 W TDP and Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics means it may still serve in notebooks where the AMD desktop part cannot physically fit. The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G uses the AMD Socket AM4, a desktop socket, and carries a 65 W TDP, making it unsuitable for the same mobile form factor. The Intel chip's BGA 1224 socket is a laptop package, so its winning scenario is strictly portability, not performance.

For users who already own a platform with an Intel BGA 1224 socket, upgrading in place is impossible because the socket is proprietary to the mobile board. Conversely, the AMD AM4 socket offers a desktop upgrade path, and the Ryzen 5 2400G has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking headroom that the Intel part lacks. The Intel Core i7-3840QM has a locked multiplier, so its clock behavior is fixed by the manufacturer.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G uses DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The Intel Core i7-3840QM uses DDR3 memory, also dual-channel, but the database records no memory bandwidth figure for it. ECC memory support is false for both.

Clock speeds differ: AMD runs at 3.60 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, while Intel runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The TDP differs significantly, with AMD at 65 W and Intel at 45 W, reflecting the desktop versus mobile market segmentation. The AMD chip has a launch MSRP of $169, while the Intel chip has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The socket and market segment differ: AMD uses AMD Socket AM4 for desktop, and Intel uses Intel BGA 1224 for mobile. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier (true), while the Intel part does not (false). Part numbers also differ: AMD is YD2400C5M4MFB, Intel is SR0UU.

Integrated graphics differ substantially. The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G includes Radeon RX Vega 11, while the Intel Core i7-3840QM includes Intel HD 4000. Neither memory support nor ECC capability matches between them, and the PCIe configuration is only listed for AMD as "Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only)", with no PCIe data recorded for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G is built on the Zen architecture with the codename Raven Ridge, belonging to the Ryzen 5 generation (Zen (Raven Ridge)) within the 2000 series. It uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 4,950 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. The cache hierarchy includes 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3.

The Intel Core i7-3840QM uses the Ivy Bridge architecture with the same codename, belonging to the Core i7 (Ivy Bridge) generation. It is built on a 22 nm process from Intel, with 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. Its cache includes 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3.

These differences explain the benchmark results. The AMD chip uses a newer 14 nm node versus Intel's 22 nm node, and it packs more than three times the transistor count (4,950 million versus 1,400 million) into a larger die (210 mm² versus 160 mm²). The larger L3 cache on the Intel chip (8 MB versus 4 MB) does not compensate for the architectural generation gap. The Zen architecture's simultaneous multithreading implementation, combined with higher base and boost clocks, delivers the observed performance advantage across all tests.

The production status for AMD is listed as "Active", while no production status is recorded for Intel. The release dates confirm the generational gap: AMD launched 2018-02-11, Intel launched 2012-09-02. The process node advantage (14 nm versus 22 nm) and the six-year architectural evolution are the primary drivers of the performance deltas.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G is the faster processor in every measured dimension. Users who need multi-core performance for rendering, encoding, or scientific workloads should select the AMD part based on its 70% Cinebench R15 multi-core lead and 77.6% Geekbench multi-core lead. Users who prioritize single-threaded tasks should also choose AMD, given its 122.4% Cinebench R15 single-core and 59.7% Geekbench single-core advantages.

The Intel Core i7-3840QM remains relevant only in its original mobile context. Its 45 W TDP and BGA 1224 socket make it a laptop component, and for anyone replacing a failed or outdated mobile CPU, the direct upgrade path is constrained to other BGA 1224 parts. The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G, with its AM4 socket and unlocked multiplier, suits desktop builders who want overclocking capability and a modern platform.

The average benchmark scores (1439 for AMD, 1416 for Intel) are closer than the head-to-head deltas suggest, because each processor anchors to different rival sets in the database. The AMD chip trades within 0.5% of its nearest rivals (the Core i7-4712HQ, Ryzen 3 2200GE, Xeon E3-1505L v5, and Core i7-2600K), while the Intel chip trades within 0.2% of its own rivals (the Ryzen 7 2700U, Ryzen Embedded R2314, Core i5-4460, and Core i7-2700K). This clustering at the 37th percentile for both indicates that, despite the head-to-head sweep, neither processor is positioned as a high-end part in the broader market.

For a new purchase, the data supports the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G. For an existing mobile system locked to Ivy Bridge, the Intel Core i7-3840QM remains a functional option, but the recorded benchmarks show it lagging in every shared test. The choice reduces to platform constraints versus raw performance, and the numbers favor AMD whenever the socket allows it.