AMD Ryzen 5 3501U vs AMD Ryzen 5 40 Comparison

# AMD Ryzen 5 3501U vs AMD Ryzen 5 40

The database records two mobile processors from AMD that share a core count but diverge sharply in architecture and output. The Ryzen 5 3501U, a Picasso-generation part built on a 12 nm process, and the Ryzen 5 40, a Mendocino-generation part on 6 nm, produce notably different benchmark profiles. The Ryzen 5 40 wins 9 of 11 head-to-head tests, while the Ryzen 5 3501U claims 2 victories, revealing a clear performance hierarchy with a few interesting exceptions.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 5 40 dominates the majority of compute-heavy workloads. Its largest margin comes in data compression, where it scores 141533 against 87380, a 38.3% advantage. Extended instructions also show a massive gap: 6437 versus 3274, a 49.1% difference. The Ryzen 5 40 leads in random string sorting by 31.1% (15124 vs 10414), in multithread by 24.3% (9341 vs 7071), in integer math by 16.7% (31598 vs 26321), and in floating point math by 16.4% (15194 vs 12707). Single-thread performance favors the Ryzen 5 40 as well, with a 13.8% lead (2477 vs 2136), and data encryption follows at 16% (6646 vs 5580).

The Ryzen 5 3501U holds two specific wins. In find prime numbers, it scores 21 versus 20, a 5% margin. In physics, it scores 483 versus 432, an 11.8% advantage. These wins are narrow in absolute terms but suggest the older Picasso design retains an edge in certain integer-heavy or legacy-optimized routines. The physics result stands out because it is the only test where the 3501U wins by double digits, and it hints that not every workload translates into a victory for the newer silicon.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations and foundries. The Ryzen 5 3501U uses the Picasso codename, part of the 3000 series, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Ryzen 5 40 uses the Mendocino codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with an explicit Zen 2 architecture label. The die sizes reflect this: the 3501U measures 210 mm² with 4,940 million transistors, while the Ryzen 5 40 measures 100 mm² with no transistor count recorded.

Cache layouts differ in L1 only. The 3501U provides 96 KB of L1 per core, while the Ryzen 5 40 provides 64 KB per core. Both share 512 KB of L2 per core and 4 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen 5 40 compensates for the smaller L1 with higher clocks and a different memory interface. It supports LPDDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 88.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the 3501U supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s. The Ryzen 5 40 also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the 3501U lists PCIe Gen 3 without a lane count. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon Vega 8 on the 3501U versus Radeon 610M on the Ryzen 5 40. The Ryzen 5 40 uses Socket FT6, the 3501U uses Socket FP5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 5 40 boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Ryzen 5 3501U boosts to 3.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores, but the Ryzen 5 40 has 8 threads while the Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: Both have 4 MB of shared L3 cache; there is no difference.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen 5 40 averages 15882, which places it at the 70th percentile, while the Ryzen 5 3501U averages 14320, at the 69th percentile.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Ryzen 5 3501U supports DDR4, while the Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5, and the latter has more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor wins in single-thread performance?

A: The Ryzen 5 40 leads with a score of 2477 versus 2136, a 13.8% advantage.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several clear divergences. The Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ: 2.10 GHz for the 3501U versus 2.80 GHz for the Ryzen 5 40. Boost clocks differ: 3.70 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. Both have a 15 W TDP. The process node is 12 nm for the 3501U and 6 nm for the Ryzen 5 40. Foundries are GlobalFoundries and TSMC, respectively. Die size is 210 mm² versus 100 mm². L1 cache is 96 KB per core versus 64 KB per core; L2 and L3 are identical. Memory support is DDR4 versus LPDDR5, with bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s versus 88.0 GB/s. Sockets differ: FP5 versus FT6. Integrated graphics are Radeon Vega 8 versus Radeon 610M. The 3501U has a recorded part number (YM3501C4T4MFG), while the Ryzen 5 40 lists an unknown part number. Release dates also differ, with the 3501U recorded as 2026-05-31 and the Ryzen 5 40 as 2025-09-30.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single delta appears in extended instructions, where the Ryzen 5 40 scores 6437 against 3274, a 49.1% lead. This test often reflects cryptography or specialized instruction throughput, and the gap here is substantial. Data compression shows a 38.3% margin (141533 vs 87380), indicating the Ryzen 5 40 handles compression workloads markedly better. Random string sorting follows at 31.1% (15124 vs 10414), and multithread at 24.3% (9341 vs 7071). These four tests all favor the Ryzen 5 40 by large margins, reinforcing its overall average score advantage of 15882 versus 14320.

The Ryzen 5 3501U wins two tests. Find prime numbers shows 21 versus 20, a 5% margin, and physics shows 483 versus 432, an 11.8% margin. The physics result is particularly notable because it inverts the broader trend; despite lower clocks and half the threads, the 3501U performs better in this specific simulation. The data suggests the physics workload may rely on per-core efficiency or particular instruction patterns that favor the older Zen+ architecture. The find prime numbers win is smaller but consistent, and it is the only test where the 3501U edges ahead in a head-to-head comparison.

Intermediate margins appear across the remaining tests. Floating point math favors the Ryzen 5 40 by 16.4% (15194 vs 12707), integer math by 16.7% (31598 vs 26321), and data encryption by 16% (6646 vs 5580). Single-thread performance shows a 13.8% lead for the Ryzen 5 40 (2477 vs 2136). These results cluster around the 14-17% range, suggesting a consistent but not overwhelming advantage for the Mendocino part in general-purpose compute. The Ryzen 5 40 also demonstrates a 24.3% multithread lead, which aligns with its 8 threads versus 4 threads, though the per-thread advantage from higher clocks and newer architecture also contributes.

The Verdict

The data points to the Ryzen 5 40 as the stronger processor for most workloads. It wins 9 of 11 head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (15882 versus 14320), and reaches the 70th percentile versus the 69th. Its advantages in extended instructions, data compression, and multithread performance are decisive, and its higher base and boost clocks, combined with 8 threads and LPDDR5 memory bandwidth, explain the broad margin.

The Ryzen 5 3501U retains a narrow niche. Its wins in physics and find prime numbers indicate that certain workloads, possibly those sensitive to per-core L1 cache size or older instruction scheduling, still favor the Picasso design. The 96 KB L1 per core versus 64 KB may play a role in these results, though the database does not isolate that variable. Users running physics simulations or prime-number computations might see better results on the 3501U, but for general productivity, compression, encryption, and math-heavy tasks, the Ryzen 5 40 is the clear choice.

The Ryzen 5 3501U also has a lower memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s) and DDR4 support, which limits its performance in data-intensive tasks. The Ryzen 5 40's 88.0 GB/s bandwidth and LPDDR5 support provide a structural advantage that shows up across multiple benchmark categories. For buyers selecting between these two, the Ryzen 5 40 offers the more balanced and future-proof profile, while the 3501U serves as a specialized alternative for workloads where its two benchmark wins matter most.