AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs AMD Ryzen 5 4600H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600H and the AMD Ryzen 5 40 are both mobile processors from AMD, but they target very different segments of the laptop market. The 4600H is a high-performance part from the 4000 series, while the 40 is a newer, low-power chip based on the Mendocino design. Benchmark data shows a clear split: the 4600H dominates multi-threaded workloads, while the 40 fights back in single-threaded tasks. This analysis examines the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and what the data implies for different use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head data is the sheer scale of the 4600H’s victory in multi-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 4600H scores 8072 against the 40’s 4841, a delta of 66.7%. The gap widens further in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the 4600H’s 1425 beats the 40’s 790 by 80.4%. These are not minor advantages; they represent a generational and core-count gulf. The 4600H’s 6 cores and 12 threads simply overwhelm the 40’s 4 cores and 8 threads in heavily parallelized workloads.

The pattern repeats across the Passmark suite. In data encryption, the 4600H scores 12217 versus 6646, a delta of 83.8%. Extended instructions show the largest single delta: 12942 versus 6437, a 101.1% advantage for the 4600H. Floating point math follows with a 77.1% delta (26909 vs 15194). Even integer math, which often scales more predictably, shows a 44.6% delta (45698 vs 31598). The 4600H wins 12 of the 15 head-to-head benchmarks, and its victories are rarely close.

However, the 40 does claim three wins, and they are concentrated in single-threaded performance. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the 40 edges out the 4600H with a score of 1150 versus 1142.5, a delta of -0.7%. The Passmark single-thread test shows a slightly larger margin: 2477 versus 2418, a -2.4% delta for the 4600H. These are narrow, but consistent, wins. The 40’s higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz, compared to the 4600H’s 4.00 GHz, appears to give it a slight edge when only one core is active.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The 4600H has an average benchmark score of 16341, while the 40 sits at 15882. Both processors land in the 70th percentile of all CPUs, but the 4600H’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-10850H (avg score 16204, delta 0.8%) and the Intel Core i5-10600KF (avg score 16228, delta 0.7%). The 40’s nearest rivals are different, including the AMD EPYC 75F3 (avg score 15859, delta 0.1%) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U (avg score 15910, delta -0.2%). This shows that while both are in the same overall percentile, they compete in different performance neighborhoods.

Where Each One Wins

The data suggests a clear use-case split. The 4600H is the obvious choice for any workload that can use multiple cores. Video editing, 3D rendering, software compilation, and data analysis all benefit from the 4600H’s substantial leads in Cinebench multicore and Passmark multithread (14228 vs 9341, a 52.3% delta). The 80.4% delta in Cinebench R15 multicore and the 66.7% delta in R23 multicore indicate that the 4600H will finish heavy tasks in a fraction of the time.

The 40, on the other hand, wins in light, single-threaded scenarios. Its 2.4% lead in Passmark single-thread and 0.7% lead in Cinebench R23 singlecore suggest it handles everyday tasks like web browsing, document editing, and basic productivity with slightly more responsiveness. The 40 also has a significant advantage in power consumption, with a 15W TDP compared to the 4600H’s 45W. This makes the 40 far more suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs, or for laptops where battery life is paramount.

The Passmark physics test, often a proxy for gaming performance in CPU-bound scenarios, shows the 4600H ahead by 45.6% (629 vs 432). This, combined with the 4600H’s Radeon RX Vega 6 integrated graphics versus the 40’s Radeon 610M, suggests the 4600H is the better option for light gaming on integrated graphics. The 40’s wins are real but narrow; the 4600H’s wins are broad and decisive.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same Zen 2 architecture, but they are built on different nodes and for different purposes. The 4600H uses the Renoir codename and is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The 40 uses the Mendocino codename and is fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node on the 40 allows for higher clocks at much lower power, which explains its single-thread advantage despite having fewer cores.

The 4600H has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This core count difference is the primary driver of the multi-threaded performance gap. The 4600H also has double the L3 cache: 8 MB shared versus 4 MB shared on the 40. L1 and L2 caches are identical at 64 KB and 512 KB per core, respectively. The die sizes differ significantly, with the 4600H at 156 mm² and the 40 at 100 mm², reflecting the extra cores and cache on the 4600H.

Memory support is another key architectural split. The 4600H supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The 40 uses LPDDR5 memory, also dual-channel, but with a much higher bandwidth of 88.0 GB/s. This higher memory bandwidth on the 40 could help in integrated graphics scenarios, but the 4600H’s superior CPU throughput likely offsets this in most tasks. Both use PCIe Gen 3, but the 40 has only 4 lanes (CPU only), while the 4600H’s lane count is not specified in the data.

Specification Differences

The most important specification difference is the core and thread count: the 4600H has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The base clock also differs, with the 4600H at 3.00 GHz and the 40 at 2.80 GHz. However, the boost clock flips the advantage: the 40 boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the 4600H boosts to 4.00 GHz.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The 4600H has a 45W TDP, while the 40 has a 15W TDP. This threefold difference in TDP explains why the 40 can be used in thinner, lighter laptops with smaller batteries. The sockets are different as well: the 4600H uses AMD Socket FP6, while the 40 uses AMD Socket FT6. The process node differs (7 nm vs 6 nm), and the die size is larger on the 4600H (156 mm² vs 100 mm²).

The integrated graphics differ: the 4600H has a Radeon RX Vega 6, while the 40 has a Radeon 610M. Memory support is also different, with the 4600H using DDR4 and the 40 using LPDDR5. The memory bandwidth is higher on the 40 (88.0 GB/s vs 51.2 GB/s). Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers. The release dates are far apart: the 4600H was released on January 5, 2020, while the 40 was released on September 30, 2025. Both are listed as Active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 4600H is decisively faster. It wins the Cinebench R15 multicore test by 80.4% (1425 vs 790) and the Cinebench R23 multicore test by 66.7% (8072 vs 4841). It also leads in Passmark multithread by 52.3% (14228 vs 9341).

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 40 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins three head-to-head tests. It wins Cinebench R23 singlecore by 0.7% (1150 vs 1142.5) and both Passmark single-thread and Passmark singlethread tests by 2.4% (2477 vs 2418).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 4600H has an average benchmark score of 16341, while the 40 has an average score of 15882. Both are in the 70th percentile of all CPUs, but the 4600H is slightly higher overall.

Q: What are the key differences in TDP?

A: The 4600H has a 45W TDP, while the 40 has a 15W TDP. This makes the 40 far more power-efficient and suitable for fanless or ultra-portable designs.

Q: Do they use the same memory type?

A: No. The 4600H supports DDR4 memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the 40 supports LPDDR5 with 88.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both are dual-channel.

Q: What are the core counts and cache sizes?

A: The 4600H has 6 cores and 12 threads with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads with 4 MB of shared L3 cache. L1 and L2 caches are identical at 64 KB and 512 KB per core.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the AMD Ryzen 5 4600H is the superior processor for demanding, multi-threaded tasks. Its 80.4% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore and 66.7% lead in R23 multicore are overwhelming. For video editing, 3D rendering, or any professional workload that scales across cores, the 4600H is the clear choice. Its 45W TDP is a price to pay, but the performance payoff is substantial.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 is the better pick for ultra-portable laptops where battery life and low heat are critical. Its 15W TDP is a fraction of the 4600H’s, and it still manages to outpace the 4600H in single-threaded tests like Passmark single-thread (2477 vs 2418) and Cinebench R23 singlecore (1150 vs 1142.5). For everyday productivity, web browsing, and light office work, the 40’s efficiency and adequate single-core performance make it a sensible choice.

The 4600H wins 12 benchmarks, the 40 wins 3. The 4600H’s wins are large and impactful; the 40’s wins are narrow and marginal. Users who need raw compute power should choose the 4600H. Users who prioritize portability and battery life over raw speed should choose the 40. The data does not support a middle ground: these are two processors optimized for opposite ends of the mobile spectrum.