AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus occupy opposite ends of the mobile processor spectrum, and the benchmark results reflect that gap consistently. Across all 15 head-to-head benchmark tests, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins outright. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 does not secure a single victory in the measured workloads.

The Intel part sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 79574. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF (avg score 79371, within 0.3%), the AMD EPYC 7413 (80041, 0.6% higher), and the Intel Core i9-14900K (79097, 0.6% lower). This is desktop-class performance in a mobile package. The AMD Ryzen 5 40, by contrast, lands in the 70th percentile with an average score of 15882, placing it near the AMD EPYC 75F3 (15859, 0.1% lower) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U (15910, 0.2% higher).

The data suggests two completely different target audiences. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 is a low-power, efficiency-focused mobile processor. Its 15 W TDP and 4-core, 8-thread configuration point toward thin-and-light laptops where battery life matters more than raw throughput. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, with a 55 W TDP and 24 cores, is built for high-performance mobile workstations and gaming laptops where sustained compute is the priority.

The benchmark deltas are stark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 39684 versus 4841 for the AMD part, a difference of 87.8%. In single-threaded PassMark, the Intel processor achieves 4951 versus 2477, exactly double. The smallest gap appears in single-core workloads, where the Intel part leads by 50% or 51.2%, but even there the AMD processor cannot close the distance.

For buyers, the choice is not about which is "better" in absolute terms. It is about matching the processor to the workload. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 serves users who need basic productivity, web browsing, and light content creation with minimal power draw. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus serves users who need maximum multi-threaded performance for rendering, compilation, simulation, or heavy data processing. The data does not suggest any scenario where the AMD part outperforms the Intel part, but the power envelope difference of 15 W versus 55 W tells its own story about intended usage.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel processor scores 39684 against 4841 for the AMD Ryzen 5 40, a delta of 87.8%. The Intel chip is roughly eight times faster in this test.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 40 win any benchmark at all?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows 15 total tests, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins all 15. The AMD part does not record a single victory.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel chip scores 2356 versus 1150 for the AMD part, a 51.2% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the scores are 4951 versus 2477, a 50% advantage. The Intel part is approximately twice as fast in single-threaded work.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock at 5.50 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Q: What memory does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5 memory with 88.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: How do the two processors rank among all CPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus sits in the 95th percentile with an average benchmark score of 79574. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 sits in the 70th percentile with an average score of 15882.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Mendocino codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 100 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, using the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. Its die size is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors.

The core counts tell the story of divergent strategies. The AMD part is a compact 4-core, 8-thread design with simultaneous multithreading. The Intel part is a 24-core, 24-thread design with no hyperthreading, meaning each core handles one thread. This explains why the Intel processor has the same thread count as core count. The AMD processor doubles its threads through SMT.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip's L3 cache is nine times larger, which directly benefits multi-threaded workloads that share data across cores.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD part uses LPDDR5, a low-power memory standard suited for compact laptops. The Intel part uses DDR5, which offers higher bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 88.0 GB/s. The Intel processor also supports ECC memory, while the AMD part does not. This makes the Intel chip more suitable for workstation-class reliability requirements.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes from the CPU. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The newer generation and higher lane count give the Intel processor significantly more bandwidth for external devices, storage, and GPUs.

Integrated graphics differ: the AMD part uses Radeon 610M, while the Intel part uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Both are integrated solutions, but the Intel GPU is positioned for more demanding visual workloads.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear separation between the two processors. 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 9 290HX Plus has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Intel chip starts slightly lower but boosts much higher.

Power draw differs by a factor of more than three. The AMD part has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel part has a TDP of 55 W. This translates directly into thermal and battery-life implications for mobile devices.

The sockets are incompatible. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses AMD Socket FT6, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Intel BGA 2114. Neither processor can be swapped into the other's platform.

The Intel processor has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The AMD part does not have an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part's part number is listed as SADSS, while the AMD part's is unknown.

Release dates differ by several months. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 became active on 2025-09-30, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus became active on 2026-03-16. Both are in active production as mobile processors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 5981 against 790 for the AMD part, a delta of 86.8%. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 39684 versus 4841, an 87.8% gap.

Single-core results are closer but still decisive. Cinebench R15 single-core has the Intel part at 340 versus 165.5, a 51.3% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2356 versus 1150, a 51.2% gap. PassMark single-thread shows 4951 versus 2477, exactly 50% apart.

The largest proportional gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Intel processor scores 519, while the AMD part scores 20, a 96.1% difference. This workload is highly sensitive to core count and clock speed, both of which favor the Intel chip.

Floating-point math shows a 92.5% delta, with the Intel part scoring 201773 against 15194. Integer math shows an 80.8% gap, with scores of 164839 versus 31598. Data compression favors the Intel part at 658724 versus 141533, an 78.5% difference. Data encryption shows 50008 versus 6646, an 86.7% gap.

Extended instructions, which test AVX and similar SIMD workloads, show the Intel part at 51290 versus 6437, a 87.4% difference. Random string sorting shows 80327 versus 15124, an 81.2% gap. Physics simulation shows 3387 versus 432, an 87.2% difference. Multithreaded PassMark shows 59439 versus 9341, an 84.3% gap.

Every single test follows the same pattern. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins by margins ranging from 50% to 96.1%. There is no workload category where the AMD Ryzen 5 40 comes within a small margin of the Intel part.

Where Each One Wins

The data does not show any benchmark victory for the AMD Ryzen 5 40. However, the specification sheet reveals where the AMD part has an advantage outside raw performance. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Intel part's 55 W TDP. For ultra-portable laptops, fanless designs, or devices where battery life is the primary metric, the AMD processor's power efficiency is a structural advantage that benchmarks do not capture.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 also uses LPDDR5 memory, which is designed for low power consumption. Its smaller die size of 100 mm² suggests lower manufacturing cost and potentially simpler cooling requirements. The 4-core, 8-thread configuration is sufficient for everyday productivity tasks, web browsing, and light media consumption. For a secondary laptop, a travel device, or a classroom machine, this processor delivers adequate performance within a minimal power envelope.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every measured workload. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, and 5.50 GHz boost clock make it suited for heavily parallel workloads: video rendering, 3D modeling, software compilation, scientific simulation, and large data processing. The PCIe Gen 5 support with 20 lanes enables fast NVMe storage and discrete GPUs. The ECC memory support adds reliability for professional workstations.

The PassMark multithread score of 59439 versus 9341 quantifies the multi-core advantage. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39684 versus 4841 shows sustained rendering capability. The Intel part's nearest rivals include desktop processors like the Core i9-14900KF and Core i9-14900K, confirming that this mobile chip competes with high-end desktop hardware.

For users who need maximum compute density in a laptop, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the clear choice. For users who prioritize portability, battery life, and quiet operation, the AMD Ryzen 5 40 offers a lower-power alternative, even though the recorded data shows it cannot match the Intel part in any measured performance test. The decision rests on power budget versus performance demand, not on benchmark superiority.