AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core i5-11400H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 and Intel Core i5-11400H are both mobile processors, but the benchmark data places them in different performance classes. The Intel part wins every single head-to-head comparison in the database, with the largest margins appearing in heavily multi-threaded workloads. However, the average benchmark scores are remarkably close, with the Ryzen 5 40 at 15882 and the Core i5-11400H at 15749, a difference of less than one percent. This contrast between individual test dominance and overall average parity highlights how different workload types are weighted in the aggregate score.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel Core i5-11400H scores 12859 against the AMD Ryzen 5 40's 4841. That is a 62.4% advantage for Intel, the largest delta in the entire comparison. The gap is similarly pronounced in Cinebench R15 multi-core, with Intel at 1296 versus AMD's 790, a 39% lead. These results align with the core count disparity: the Intel chip offers 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD part is limited to 4 cores and 8 threads.

Single-core performance tells a less extreme but still Intel-favorable story. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core i5-11400H scores 1815 against 1150 for the Ryzen 5 40, a 36.6% advantage. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a smaller gap: 182 versus 165.5, which is a 9.1% difference. The PassMark single-thread test also favors Intel, with scores of 2975 versus 2477, a 16.7% lead. These results suggest that the Intel core architecture is more efficient at extracting performance from a single thread, independent of clock speed differences.

In synthetic math workloads, the Intel processor's superiority is consistent and large. PassMark floating point math shows Intel at 32060 versus AMD's 15194, a 52.6% gap. Integer math is similarly one-sided: 53286 for Intel versus 31598 for AMD, a 40.7% lead. The extended instructions test is even more lopsided, with Intel at 12971 and AMD at 6437, a 50.4% deficit for the Ryzen part. These are not marginal wins; they represent fundamental throughput advantages in compute-heavy tasks.

Memory and data-oriented tests follow the same pattern. PassMark data compression shows Intel at 190855 versus AMD's 141533, a 25.8% lead. Data encryption is 9309 versus 6646, a 28.6% gap. Random string sorting results in 22512 for Intel and 15124 for AMD, a 32.8% difference. Even the PassMark physics test, which is often sensitive to memory latency, favors Intel by 36.3% (678 versus 432). The only test where the delta is below ten percent is Cinebench R15 single-core, indicating that the AMD core is at least competitive in lightly threaded, short-burst workloads.

The overall PassMark multithread score gives Intel a 15346 to 9341 win, a 39.1% margin. This is consistent with the Cinebench multi-core results and reinforces the conclusion that the Intel part is the superior choice for parallel processing. Notably, the AMD Ryzen 5 40 achieves a 70th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Intel Core i5-11400H sits at the 69th percentile. These percentile values are nearly identical, despite the large head-to-head gaps, suggesting that the broader benchmark pool includes many processors that fall between these two in performance.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-11400H is the faster processor in every single benchmark recorded. For users who prioritize raw performance in multi-threaded applications like video rendering, 3D modeling, or code compilation, the Intel part is the clear choice. The 62.4% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 52.6% lead in floating-point math are decisive. Even in single-threaded tasks, where the gap is smaller, Intel still holds a 16.7% lead in PassMark single-thread. Anyone selecting the AMD Ryzen 5 40 would need a reason unrelated to compute performance, as the data shows no workload category where it wins.

However, the average benchmark score tells a different story. The Ryzen 5 40's average of 15882 is actually 0.1% higher than the Core i5-11400H's 15749, and the nearest rivals for each processor include the same EPYC parts. This suggests that the aggregate score is heavily influenced by a diverse set of tests beyond the ones listed in the head-to-head comparison. The Intel part's wins are concentrated in the Cinebench and PassMark suites, while the AMD part may have strengths in other unlisted benchmarks that lift its average. For a buyer, this means the Intel chip is better for the specific workloads shown, but the overall performance profile is closer than the head-to-head deltas imply.

The Core i5-11400H also has a higher boost clock (4.50 GHz versus 4.30 GHz) and a larger L3 cache (12 MB versus 4 MB), which likely contribute to its wins. The AMD part has a lower TDP (15 W versus 35 W), making it more suitable for fanless or ultra-portable designs. But from a pure performance standpoint, the Intel processor is the superior choice. The Ryzen 5 40 may be adequate for basic productivity, but the benchmark results indicate that it is outclassed in every measurable category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 microarchitecture with the codename Mendocino, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i5-11400H uses Tiger Lake architecture (Tiger Lake-H) on a 10 nm process at Intel's own fabs. The die sizes reflect this difference: the AMD chip measures 100 mm², while the Intel chip is substantially larger at 190 mm². The smaller process node allows AMD to pack the Zen 2 cores into a much smaller area, though the Intel chip's larger die accommodates more cores and cache.

Cache organization differs significantly. The AMD part allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The Intel part uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 12 MB L3 cache. The larger L3 cache on the Intel chip is likely a major factor in its single-threaded and multi-threaded performance advantages, as it reduces memory latency for frequently accessed data. The L2 cache per core is also more than double on the Intel side.

Memory support is another key architectural divider. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 88.0 GB/s. The Intel Core i5-11400H supports DDR4 memory, also dual-channel, but with a lower bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. Despite the lower memory bandwidth, the Intel chip still wins all memory-sensitive tests, suggesting that its cache hierarchy and core design compensate for the slower memory interface. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD part provides PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Intel processor significantly more bandwidth for discrete GPUs or NVMe storage, a relevant consideration for gaming laptops or mobile workstations. The integrated graphics also differ: the AMD chip uses Radeon 610M, while the Intel chip uses UHD Graphics. Neither is described with performance numbers in the data.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious specification difference. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-11400H has 6 cores and 12 threads. This 50% increase in core count for Intel directly explains its multi-threaded benchmark dominance. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz for AMD and 2.20 GHz for Intel, but boost clocks reverse the order: 4.30 GHz for AMD and 4.50 GHz for Intel. The Intel chip reaches a higher peak frequency, which helps in single-threaded tests.

Thermal design power is another clear differentiator. The AMD part is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Intel part is rated at 35 W TDP. This makes the AMD chip much more power-efficient on paper, but the Intel chip uses that additional power budget to deliver higher performance. The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket FT6, while Intel uses BGA 1787. The process nodes differ (6 nm for AMD, 10 nm for Intel), as do the foundries (TSMC versus Intel).

Memory type and bandwidth are different, as noted: LPDDR5 with 88.0 GB/s for AMD, DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s for Intel. The PCIe version and lane count also differ (Gen 3 x4 for AMD, Gen 4 x20 for Intel). The Intel part has a part number (SRKT1) and a launch MSRP of $250, which is stated once here. The AMD part has no launch MSRP and an unknown part number. The release dates differ by over four years: the Intel chip launched on 2025-09-30, while the Intel chip launched on 2021-05-10. Both are listed as Active in production status.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i5-11400H wins all multi-core benchmarks. It scores 12859 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 4841 for the AMD Ryzen 5 40, a 62.4% advantage. In PassMark multithread, Intel leads 15346 to 9341, a 39.1% gap.

Q: How do the single-core performances compare?

A: The Intel part also leads in single-core tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1815 for Intel versus 1150 for AMD, a 36.6% difference. PassMark single-thread gives Intel 2975 and AMD 2477, a 16.7% lead.

Q: Are the average benchmark scores different?

A: The averages are very close. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has an average benchmark score of 15882, while the Intel Core i5-11400H averages 15749. The nearest rivals for each include the same AMD EPYC parts, with deltas ranging from -0.7% to 0.4%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i5-11400H has 6 cores and 12 threads. This core count difference is the primary reason for Intel's multi-threaded wins.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400H has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The AMD part has a higher base clock at 2.80 GHz versus Intel's 2.20 GHz.

Q: How does memory support differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5 memory with 88.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i5-11400H supports DDR4 memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both use dual-channel memory buses.