AMD Ryzen 5 7540U vs Intel Core 5 210H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into a clear pattern: Intel takes the heavy multi-threaded workloads, while AMD counters with efficiency in specialized tasks. Looking at the head-to-head results, the Intel Core 5 210H wins 7 of the 15 recorded tests, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7540U takes 8, but the margin of victory matters more than the raw count.

The biggest Intel win comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 210H scores 11830 against the Ryzen 5 7540U's 10383, a 12.2% advantage. That is a substantial gap for rendering and CPU-heavy productivity. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel leads again with 1757 versus 1676, a smaller 4.6% edge. Floating point math is another major Intel victory: 45057 versus 36077, a 19.9% lead. That is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head set, and it indicates a meaningful advantage for scientific computing, physics simulation, and any workload that relies heavily on FPU throughput. Intel also wins integer math (61503 versus 60152, a 2.2% edge), PassMark physics (1040 versus 964, a 7.3% lead), and data compression (217805 versus 211581, a 2.9% advantage).

The AMD Ryzen 5 7540U's most striking win is in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 15307 against Intel's 13370, a 14.5% lead. This covers newer instruction set extensions, and the gap suggests the Zen 4 core handles those workloads more efficiently. Prime number finding is an even larger relative win for AMD: 66 versus 53, a 24.5% advantage, although both absolute scores are low, so the real-world impact is modest. In Cinebench R15 single-core, AMD wins 264 versus 247, a 6.9% edge, which is a solid margin for lightly threaded tasks. AMD also leads in data encryption (12563 versus 12187, a 3.1% win), random string sorting (24760 versus 23451, a 5.6% win), and PassMark multithread (18576 versus 18252, a 1.8% win). The single-thread PassMark scores are nearly identical: 3544 versus 3539, a 0.1% difference that is effectively a tie.

Interestingly, the Cinebench R23 single-core result goes to Intel (1771 versus 1699, a 4.1% lead), which contradicts the R15 single-core result. This highlights how different render engines can favor different microarchitectures. Overall, the average benchmark score favors Intel: 24872 versus 24188, about a 2.8% gap. The Ryzen 5 7540U sits at the 76th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 210H sits at the 77th, so both are firmly mid-pack performers in the broader market.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 7540U uses the Zen 4 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process, with the codename Phoenix and a transistor count of 25,000 million on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 210H uses the Raptor Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, with the codename Raptor Lake-H and no transistor or die size figures recorded. The process node difference is stark: 4 nm versus 10 nm, which explains much of the efficiency gap between the two.

Core counts differ: AMD has 6 cores and 12 threads, while Intel has 8 cores and 12 threads. Both support 12 threads, but Intel gets there with two extra physical cores, meaning it relies less on simultaneous multithreading. The base clocks tell a similar story: AMD starts at 3.20 GHz, Intel at 2.20 GHz, but the boost clocks are close at 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The AMD chip needs a higher base clock to extract performance from fewer cores, while Intel's extra cores allow a lower idle clock.

Cache layouts are quite different. AMD uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3. That means Intel has more per-core cache but less shared cache, which can matter in workloads where threads share data sets. The L3 deficit for Intel is notable: 12 MB versus 16 MB, a 33% gap in favor of AMD.

Memory support splits sharply. The Ryzen 5 7540U supports only DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with a measured memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 210H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over dual-channel memory, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded and ECC is not supported. This makes the AMD chip the more attractive option for users who need ECC in a laptop platform, while Intel offers more flexibility in memory type.

PCIe support also differs. The AMD chip provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Intel chip has the newer PCIe generation, but far fewer lanes, which could matter for external GPU enclosures or high-bandwidth storage. Integrated graphics differ too: AMD uses the Radeon 740M, while Intel uses Iris Xe Graphics 48EU. The AMD chip has a 28 W TDP, while Intel is rated at 45 W, a significant power envelope difference that explains some of the benchmark gaps.

Where Each One Wins

For multi-threaded productivity, the Intel Core 5 210H is the clear pick. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core lead of 12.2% and floating point math lead of 19.9% make it the better choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, physics simulations, and number-crunching applications. The 8 physical cores give it a structural advantage in workloads that scale with core count, and the data compression win (2.9%) suggests archiving and file compression tasks will complete slightly faster.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7540U wins in single-core responsiveness according to Cinebench R15, where it leads by 6.9%, and in extended instruction workloads, where it leads by 14.5%. That makes it a strong option for developers compiling code with newer instruction sets, for encryption-heavy workloads (3.1% lead), and for any application that uses AVX-512 or similar extensions. The 24.5% lead in prime number finding, while small in absolute terms, points to better integer-heavy algorithm performance in certain niche workloads.

The nearly identical PassMark single-thread scores (3544 versus 3539) mean day-to-day desktop responsiveness will feel similar in most office and browsing tasks. The AMD chip wins PassMark multithread by 1.8%, which is a marginal but consistent edge in mixed workloads. The AMD chip's lower TDP of 28 W versus Intel's 45 W is not a benchmark score, but it has real implications for sustained performance in thin-and-light laptops: the AMD chip will generate less heat and may hold boost clocks longer in thermally constrained chassis.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 11830 versus 10383, a 12.2% advantage, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core with 1757 versus 1676, a 4.6% lead.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 7540U better for single-threaded tasks?

A: It depends on the test. The AMD chip wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 6.9% (264 versus 247), but Intel wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 4.1% (1771 versus 1699). PassMark single-thread is effectively a tie at 3544 versus 3539.

Q: Which CPU has better memory flexibility?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7540U supports only DDR5. However, AMD supports ECC memory and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while Intel does not support ECC.

Q: How does the core count differ?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7540U has 6 cores and 12 threads. Both have 12 threads, but Intel uses two additional physical cores to reach that count.

Q: Which CPU is more efficient per watt?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7540U has a 28 W TDP, while the Intel Core 5 210H has a 45 W TDP. Despite the lower power envelope, AMD still wins 8 of the 15 head-to-head benchmarks, indicating better performance per watt in many workloads.

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of each CPU?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H has an average benchmark score of 24872 and sits at the 77th percentile, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7540U has an average score of 24188 and sits at the 76th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: choose the Intel Core 5 210H for maximum multi-threaded throughput, and choose the AMD Ryzen 5 7540U for efficiency and specialized instruction workloads. The Intel chip's 12.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 19.9% lead in floating point math make it the stronger choice for rendering, simulation, and compute-heavy tasks. Its 8 physical cores provide a structural advantage that the AMD chip cannot overcome despite its higher boost clock.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7540U is the better pick for users who prioritize lower power consumption (28 W versus 45 W) and who work with newer instruction sets, where it leads by 14.5% in extended instructions. Its ECC memory support is a differentiator for reliability-sensitive workloads. The 6.9% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core also makes it slightly snappier in some lightly threaded applications.

For thermal-constrained laptops, the AMD chip's lower TDP is a significant practical advantage. For performance-per-core in mixed workloads, the two are nearly identical, as shown by the PassMark single-thread scores (3544 versus 3539). The Intel chip's launch MSRP is $342, which is worth noting for comparison purposes. The average benchmark scores place Intel about 2.8% higher overall, but the AMD chip wins more individual tests. The right choice depends entirely on whether the workload leans toward multi-threaded throughput or efficiency and specialized instructions.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 7540U | Intel Core 5 210H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 28 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB shared | 12 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 8 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 740M | Iris Xe Graphics 48EU |

| Release Date | 2023-05-02 | 2024-12-17 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $342 |