AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core 3 201E Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a decisive split between these two processors. The Intel Core 3 201E wins every single head-to-head test recorded, taking all 15 benchmark comparisons. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 does not win a single test in the database. This result is consistent across both synthetic rendering workloads and PassMark system-level tests.

The Intel Core 3 201E is the clear choice for anyone building a desktop system that prioritizes raw computing throughput. Its average benchmark score of 19056 places it at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs tracked. The AMD Ryzen 5 40, by contrast, records an average score of 15882, sitting at the 70th percentile.

For the Ryzen 5 40, the data indicates a processor suited to low-power mobile environments. Its 15 W TDP and compact 100 mm² die suggest efficiency-focused designs like thin laptops. The Intel part, with a 60 W TDP and 163 mm² die, targets desktop builds where power draw matters less than performance.

The nearest rivals for each chip confirm their positioning. The Ryzen 5 40 sits within 0.4% of several server-class AMD EPYC processors in average score, which is noteworthy for a mobile chip. The Core 3 201E matches the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and Intel Core i5-12400F within 0.1%, placing it in established mainstream desktop territory.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 architecture on Mendocino silicon, built by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The Intel Core 3 201E uses Bartlett Lake silicon, fabricated by Intel on a 10 nm process. This process difference partially explains the power disparity: the AMD chip draws 15 W versus 60 W for the Intel part.

Both CPUs have 4 cores and 8 threads, so thread count is identical. The cache hierarchy, however, diverges sharply. The Ryzen 5 40 carries 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 4 MB shared L3 cache. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a 12 MB shared L3 cache. That triple-sized L3 cache gives the Intel chip a substantial memory hierarchy advantage for repeated data access patterns.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD part supports LPDDR5 exclusively on a dual-channel bus with 88.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but tops out at 76.8 GB/s. The AMD chip's higher bandwidth reflects its mobile LPDDR5 focus, while the Intel chip's flexibility suits desktop memory availability.

PCIe connectivity shows another gap. The Ryzen 5 40 offers PCIe Gen 3 with only 4 CPU lanes. The Core 3 201E provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, a fourfold increase in lane count and two generations newer. Integrated graphics differ too: Radeon 610M on the AMD side versus UHD Graphics 730 on the Intel side.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Intel part, which may matter for certain workstation or server-adjacent uses. The Ryzen 5 40 lacks ECC capability entirely.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core 3 201E wins in every measurable category. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel chip scores 12613 versus 4841 for the AMD chip, a 61.6% advantage. This workload heavily stresses all cores and threads, and the Intel processor's higher clock speeds and larger caches produce a commanding lead.

Single-threaded performance also favors Intel. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 3 201E scores 1780 against 1150, a 35.4% gap. PassMark single-thread results show 3482 versus 2477, a 28.9% difference. These results indicate the Intel chip's 4.80 GHz boost clock provides meaningful responsiveness in lightly threaded applications.

PassMark physics testing shows the Intel chip at 1141 versus 432, a 62.1% margin. This test often correlates with gaming physics calculations, suggesting the Intel part would handle game logic more smoothly. Floating-point math favors Intel at 33260 versus 15194, a 54.3% lead, while integer math shows 43894 versus 31598, a 28% advantage.

The only category where the AMD chip comes relatively close is data compression. The Intel part scores 164160 versus 141533, a 13.8% margin. Random string sorting shows a 15% gap. These smaller differences suggest the AMD chip's LPDDR5 bandwidth helps somewhat in memory-latency-sensitive tasks, but not enough to overcome the Intel processor's overall superiority.

The Ryzen 5 40's only potential advantage lies in its power envelope and platform. At 15 W versus 60 W, the AMD chip consumes one-quarter the power of the Intel part. For fanless or passively cooled designs, or for battery-powered systems, that efficiency delta could be decisive. The database contains no power efficiency benchmarks, so this remains a platform consideration rather than a measured performance result.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 reaches 4.30 GHz.

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

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 does not.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5 only. The Intel Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E averages 19056, which is 20% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 40's 15882.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has 12 MB shared L3 cache, three times the 4 MB on the AMD Ryzen 5 40.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in the entire comparison appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Intel Core 3 201E scores 12613 against the AMD Ryzen 5 40's 4841, a 61.6% deficit for the AMD chip. This workload represents sustained all-core rendering, and the gap demonstrates that the Intel processor's higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 2.80 GHz, combined with its larger cache, translates into substantially more throughput.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern but with a smaller margin. Intel scores 1271 versus 790, a 37.8% lead. The R15 single-core test narrows further: Intel at 179 versus 165.5, only a 7.5% difference. This is the closest result in any benchmark, suggesting that at low thread counts the AMD chip's Zen 2 architecture competes more effectively despite its lower clock speeds.

Cinebench R23 single-core widens again to 35.4%, with Intel at 1780 versus 1150. The discrepancy between R15 and R23 single-core results likely reflects workload scaling differences between the two renderer versions, but the direction is consistent: Intel wins both.

PassMark floating-point math shows one of the larger gaps. Intel scores 33260 versus 15194, a 54.3% margin. This test exercises SIMD and vector processing, where the Intel chip's newer architecture and higher clocks provide a clear edge. Prime number finding shows the biggest percentage difference: Intel at 57 versus 20, a 64.9% lead. This workload is highly dependent on integer division and branch prediction, areas where the Intel processor excels.

Data encryption favors Intel at 8931 versus 6646, a 25.6% gap. Extended instructions show Intel at 11035 versus 6437, a 41.7% advantage. These results indicate the Intel chip handles cryptographic and specialized instruction workloads with significantly more headroom.

The smallest margins appear in data compression and random string sorting. Intel leads compression by 13.8% (164160 versus 141533) and sorting by 15% (17783 versus 15124). These memory-heavy tasks benefit from the AMD chip's 88.0 GB/s LPDDR5 bandwidth, which partially offsets its smaller cache. Still, Intel's 12 MB L3 cache ultimately wins out.

PassMark multithread shows Intel at 14839 versus 9341, a 37.1% margin. Physics simulation shows Intel at 1141 versus 432, a 62.1% gap. Integer math shows Intel at 43894 versus 31598, a 28% lead. Single-thread results appear twice in the database with identical values: Intel at 3482 versus 2477, a 28.9% difference in both entries.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where these two processors differ:

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 40 | Intel Core 3 201E |

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

| Base clock | 2.80 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 60 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FT6 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Bartlett Lake |

| Process node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| Die size | 100 mm² | 163 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 512 KB per core | 1.25 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 4 MB shared | 12 MB shared |

| Memory support | LPDDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 88.0 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 4 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 610M | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2025-09-30 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | $134 |

| Part number | Unknown | SRVTR |

The AMD chip uses a smaller 6 nm process from TSMC, resulting in a 100 mm² die and a 15 W power envelope. The Intel chip uses Intel's 10 nm process with a 163 mm² die and 60 W TDP. Both processors have locked multipliers and 8 threads. The AMD chip's memory bandwidth is higher at 88.0 GB/s, but the Intel chip supports more memory types and ECC. PCIe capability strongly favors Intel with Gen 5 and 16 lanes versus Gen 3 and 4 lanes. The release dates differ by roughly eight months, with Intel shipping earlier.