AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U vs Intel Core 7 240H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U and the Intel Core 7 240H land within a fraction of a percent of each other in overall database standing, yet the recorded results reveal two very different processors underneath. The Ryzen chip sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 32233, while the Core 7 240H sits in the 82nd percentile at 31483. That near-identical aggregate hides a stark split: the AMD part dominates sustained rendering and single-threaded responsiveness, while the Intel part wins the majority of individual tests by smaller margins and pulls far ahead in physics simulation. Which one matters more depends entirely on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head record stands at 9 wins for the Intel Core 7 240H against 8 for the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, but the shape of those wins tells a more interesting story than the count. The AMD processor's victories are concentrated in rendering and instruction-throughput workloads: Cinebench R23 multi-core (20254 versus 15764, a 28.5 percent gap), Cinebench R23 single-core (2859 versus 1719, a 66.3 percent gap), Cinebench R15 single-core (288 versus 249, 15.7 percent), encryption (16441 versus 15155, 8.5 percent), extended instructions (19132 versus 16897, 13.2 percent), integer math (88339 versus 80396, 9.9 percent), string sorting (33109 versus 28866, 14.7 percent), and data compression (272664 versus 271774, a razor-thin 0.3 percent).

The Intel processor wins on breadth rather than magnitude in most cases. Its largest margins come in physics (1723 versus 1174, 31.9 percent), prime number search (102 versus 76, 25.5 percent), and Cinebench R15 multi-core (2360 versus 2041, 13.5 percent). Its remaining wins are narrow: Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core by 0.7 percent each, PassMark multithread by 0.5 percent, single-thread by 3.7 percent, and floating point math by 13.9 percent. For a user running long rendering jobs, code compilation, or encryption-heavy tasks, the AMD results point one direction. For simulation work and quick bursty workloads, the Intel data points the other.

Architecture Differences

These are two fundamentally different design philosophies. The Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U is a Zen 4 "Hawk Point" part built on TSMC's 4 nm process, with 8 cores and 16 threads, all of the same symmetric type. The Core 7 240H is a Raptor Lake-H design on Intel's 10 nm process, combining 10 cores with 16 threads, which means it uses a hybrid layout where more cores than threads implies some cores run without simultaneous multithreading. The AMD chip holds a 3.30 GHz base clock against Intel's 2.50 GHz, while Intel edges ahead at boost with 5.20 GHz versus 5.10 GHz.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. Intel fits 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, plus 24 MB of shared L3. AMD fits 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, plus 16 MB of shared L3. Intel therefore carries substantially more total cache, which may help explain its physics and prime-search wins, both of which favor data locality. AMD counters with superior memory bandwidth on paper: 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus, with no equivalent figure recorded for the Intel part, which supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Notably, the Ryzen supports ECC memory while the Core 7 240H does not, a meaningful differentiator for professional deployments.

Platform features split as well. Intel offers PCIe Gen 5 but only 8 CPU lanes; AMD offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. A discrete GPU or fast storage buyer has a genuine trade-off to weigh there. The silicon itself is documented on the AMD side, with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die; no transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel chip. Power envelopes differ too: 28 watts for the Ryzen against 45 watts for the Core, which frames the AMD part as the efficiency-oriented design. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $502. Integrated graphics also differ: AMD ships the Radeon 780M, Intel the Iris Xe Graphics 64EU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single most striking number in the entire dataset is Cinebench R23 single-core: 2859 for the Ryzen versus 1719 for the Core. That 66.3 percent advantage is enormous for two chips rated in the same overall percentile, and it raises a question worth asking: is the Intel sample throttling, or does the Raptor Lake design simply fall behind in this sustained single-threaded rendering loop? The database cannot answer causality, but the consistency of the AMD lead across all three Cinebench single-core tests (15.7 percent in R15, 66.3 percent in R23) suggests a real architectural strength rather than a fluke.

Multi-core rendering tells a more complicated tale. In R15 the Intel wins by 13.5 percent (2360 versus 2041). In R20 the two are statistically tied, with Intel ahead by just 0.7 percent (8562 versus 8506). Then in R23 the AMD part explodes to a 28.5 percent lead (20254 versus 15764). That reversal across generations of the same benchmark is the most curious pattern in the comparison. R23 runs longer and hotter than R15, so one plausible reading is that the Ryzen holds its clocks better under sustained load while the Intel design front-loads its performance, but the recorded data only shows the pattern, not the mechanism.

PassMark results mirror that split. Intel's physics score of 1723 versus 1174 (31.9 percent) is its biggest win anywhere, and its floating point result of 58905 versus 50746 (13.9 percent) is solid. Yet AMD takes integer math by 9.9 percent, encryption by 8.5 percent, extended instructions by 13.2 percent, and string sorting by 14.7 percent. Single-threaded PassMark favors Intel by 3.7 percent (3782 versus 3641), which sits oddly beside the Cinebench single-core results; the workloads clearly measure different things. Aggregate standing confirms the near-tie: the Ryzen's 32233 average places it alongside rivals like the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226) and Core i5-14400F (32279), while the Core 7 240H's 31483 puts it near the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 (31473) and AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX (31495).

FAQ

Q: Which chip is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, scoring 20254 against 15764 for the Intel Core 7 240H, a 28.5 percent advantage.

Q: Which one wins overall in the database?

A: Intel narrowly leads the head-to-head count with 9 wins to AMD's 8, but AMD's average benchmark score is higher at 32233 versus 31483.

Q: Do both chips support DDR5?

A: Yes. The Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U supports DDR5 only, while the Core 7 240H supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Which processor has the lower power envelope?

A: The Ryzen, with a TDP of 28 watts versus 45 watts for the Core 7 240H.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Only the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, which reports ECC support. The Core 7 240H does not.

Q: Which has the bigger cache?

A: The Intel chip, with 24 MB of shared L3 and 2 MB of L2 per core, versus 16 MB of shared L3 and 1 MB of L2 per core on the AMD side.

The Verdict

The data points to the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U for anyone whose work resembles the tests it dominates: sustained multi-core rendering, single-threaded responsiveness, encryption, integer-heavy computation, and sorting. Its 28-watt envelope delivering a 28.5 percent R23 multi-core win over a 45-watt rival is the most persuasive single fact in the dataset. Add ECC support and 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, and the professional case strengthens further.

The Core 7 240H makes its own case for simulation-heavy users, given the 31.9 percent physics win, and for those who need PCIe Gen 5, DDR4 compatibility, or the extra cache. Its broader win count shows it is rarely embarrassed. But the magnitude asymmetry is hard to ignore: AMD's losses are mostly small, while its wins in R23 and single-core rendering are huge. On the recorded evidence, the Ryzen is the stronger all-around performer per watt; the Intel chip is the pick only where physics and floating point dominate.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U | Intel Core 7 240H |

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

| Architecture | Zen 4 (Hawk Point) | Raptor Lake (Raptor Lake-H) |

| Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 45 W |

| Process Node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| 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 | 24 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M | Iris Xe Graphics 64EU |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | Not recorded |

| Release Date | April 2024 | December 2024 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $502 |