AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus occupy different corners of the processor market, and the benchmark data reflects a complete mismatch in their intended use cases. The Ryzen 5 40 is a low-power mobile part, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a high-core-count desktop processor. The recorded data shows a one-sided comparison where the Intel part wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head set.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. There are no recorded wins for the AMD Ryzen 5 40 in any of the shared tests. This is not a close contest; the delta percentages range from -47.3% to -95.6%, meaning the AMD part trails by nearly half to more than 95% depending on the workload.

The Ryzen 5 40's only competitive area is in the single-thread PassMark test, where it scores 2477 against the Intel's 4698, a delta of -47.3%. That is the smallest gap in the entire comparison. The Intel part's biggest advantage appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where it scores 452 versus the AMD's 20, a delta of -95.6%. This suggests the Intel part has a massive advantage in integer-heavy, single-threaded mathematical workloads.

For users, the use-case split is straightforward. The Ryzen 5 40 is designed for efficient mobile computing with its 15 TDP and integrated Radeon 610M graphics. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with its 125 TDP and no integrated graphics, is built for desktop performance. Anyone needing heavy multi-threaded throughput, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or data compression, would look at the Intel part. The AMD part would serve light productivity and battery-conscious portable use, but the benchmark data shows it cannot match the Intel part in raw performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different architectures from different process nodes. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 architecture with the Mendocino codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC.

The core counts differ significantly. The AMD part has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel part has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel part does not use simultaneous multithreading, hence the equal core and thread counts. The AMD part uses traditional SMT to double its thread count.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Intel part's larger caches align with its higher core count and desktop positioning.

The memory support differs as well. The AMD part uses LPDDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 88.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, while the AMD part does not.

The process nodes are notable: 6 nm for AMD versus 3 nm for Intel. The Intel part also has a much larger die size at 243 mm² compared to the AMD's 100 mm², and it lists 17,800 million transistors, while the AMD part does not list a transistor count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show the scale of the performance gap. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 42718 against the AMD's 4841, a delta of -88.7%. That is an 8.8x advantage in favor of the Intel part. In single-core R23, the Intel part scores 6030 against 1150, a delta of -80.9%. The Intel part is roughly 5.2x faster in single-core performance.

Cinebench R15 shows a similar pattern. Multi-core scores are 4305 for Intel versus 790 for AMD, a delta of -81.6%. Single-core is 607 versus 165.5, a delta of -72.7%. The single-core gap is slightly smaller in R15 than in R23, but still overwhelming.

The PassMark suite shows where the Intel part's architecture excels. In floating-point math, the Intel part scores 159824 against 15194, a delta of -90.5%. Integer math shows 123030 versus 31598, a delta of -74.3%. Data compression is 553155 versus 141533, a delta of -74.4%. Data encryption is 41292 versus 6646, a delta of -83.9%.

The physics test in PassMark is particularly lopsided: 3183 for Intel versus 432 for AMD, a delta of -86.4%. Extended instructions show 42880 versus 6437, a delta of -85%. Random string sorting is 67209 versus 15124, a delta of -77.5%.

The smallest relative gap is in PassMark single-thread tests, where both the single_thread and singlethread entries show 4698 for Intel versus 2477 for AMD, a delta of -47.3%. This indicates that the Intel part's per-core advantage, while still significant, is not as dominant as its multi-threaded lead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz.

The TDP ratings are 15 watts for the AMD part and 125 watts for the Intel part. This is a fundamental difference in power envelope and cooling requirements.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket FT6 versus Intel Socket 1851. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes, while the Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The AMD part includes integrated Radeon 610M graphics. The Intel part has no integrated graphics, indicated as N/A.

The AMD part is marked as a mobile segment product with a locked multiplier. The Intel part is a desktop segment product with an unlocked multiplier. This means the Intel part can be overclocked, while the AMD part cannot.

The release dates differ: the AMD part was released on September 30, 2025, and the Intel part on March 10, 2026. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $184, which can be stated once.

The Intel part lists a part number of SA4V3, while the AMD part's part number is unknown.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel part scores 42718, while the AMD part scores 4841, resulting in a delta of -88.7% for the AMD part.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory, but the AMD Ryzen 5 40 does not.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 includes a Radeon 610M integrated GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two?

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Intel part scores 4698 and the AMD part scores 2477, a delta of -47.3%.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Intel part has 115.2 GB/s bandwidth with DDR5, while the AMD part has 88.0 GB/s bandwidth with LPDDR5.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the dominant performer in every recorded benchmark. Its 18 cores, higher clock speeds, and 3 nm process give it a massive advantage in multi-threaded workloads, with Cinebench R23 multi-core showing an 8.8x lead. The single-thread lead is smaller but still substantial, at roughly 1.9x in PassMark.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has no benchmark wins. Its strengths lie outside raw performance: a 15 watt TDP, integrated graphics, and mobile socket design. These characteristics make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and low heat output matter more than compute throughput. The Intel part, with its 125 watt TDP, unlocked multiplier, and desktop socket, is built for performance-oriented desktop systems.

Users should choose based on platform and power constraints. The Intel part is the choice for desktop workloads that demand maximum multi-core performance, such as rendering, encoding, and scientific computing. The AMD part is the choice for portable systems where the 15 watt envelope and integrated graphics are the primary considerations. The benchmark data provides no scenario where the AMD part outperforms the Intel part, so the decision rests on form factor and power requirements rather than performance.