AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 vs Intel Core 7 240H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 and Intel Core 7 240H is decisive but not absolute. The AMD part wins 11 of the 15 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while Intel takes 4. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 dominates threaded workloads, encryption, compression, and instruction-heavy tasks. The Intel Core 7 240H counters with narrow victories in single-thread tests and physics simulation.

Looking at the workload breakdown, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 is the clear choice for multi-threaded productivity. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 17462.5 versus 15764 for Intel represents a 10.8% advantage, and the gap widens in specialized tasks. Data compression shows a 28.6% lead, integer math a 23.3% lead, and random string sorting a 29.5% lead. These are tasks that scale with thread count and cache efficiency, areas where the Ryzen AI 9 465's 20 threads and 16 MB L3 cache provide structural advantages.

The Intel Core 7 240H wins the single-thread races, but only marginally. Its Passmark single-thread score of 3782 beats AMD's 3750 by 0.8%, and its Cinebench R15 single-core score of 249 edges out 247 by the same margin. Physics simulation also goes Intel's way, 1723 versus 1689, a 2% difference. These wins suggest that in lightly threaded scenarios or physics-based calculations, the Intel part holds a slight edge, but the margins are small enough that they would rarely dictate a purchasing decision.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 also shows strength in encryption and extended instructions. Data encryption scores 17601 against 15155, a 16.1% gap, while extended instructions deliver 24773 versus 16897, a massive 46.6% advantage. The latter is the single largest delta in the entire comparison and points to AMD's Zen 5 architecture handling AVX-512-style workloads far more efficiently.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 has 20 threads from 10 cores, while the Intel Core 7 240H has 16 threads from 10 cores. This thread advantage directly contributes to AMD's multi-threaded benchmark wins.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H leads in Cinebench R15 single-core by 0.8% (249 versus 247) and in Passmark single-thread by 0.8% (3782 versus 3750). However, AMD wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 16.1% (1996.5 versus 1719).

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 uses Radeon 880M graphics, while the Intel Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics 64EU. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so their relative performance cannot be quantified here.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, but no bandwidth figure is recorded.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 boosts to 5.00 GHz. Intel also has a higher base clock at 2.50 GHz versus AMD's 2.00 GHz.

Q: How do the overall database scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 has an average benchmark score of 43431 and sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 240H has an average score of 31483 and sits in the 82nd percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in Passmark extended instructions, where the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 outscores the Intel Core 7 240H by 46.6%. This test measures SIMD and vector processing capability, and the Zen 5 architecture's support for wider instruction sets translates into a near-50% advantage. For developers compiling code or researchers running scientific workloads, this is the kind of gap that changes project timelines.

Data compression shows a 28.6% lead for AMD (349463 versus 271774). This is a real-world task that benefits from higher thread counts and larger caches, and the Ryzen AI 9 465's 20 threads plus 16 MB L3 cache deliver accordingly. Random string sorting follows with a 29.5% advantage (37379 versus 28866), another indication that AMD handles memory-intensive sorting algorithms more efficiently.

Integer math scores 99156 for AMD versus 80396 for Intel, a 23.3% margin. This workload is heavily threaded, and the extra four threads on the AMD part plus its higher multi-core scaling explain the result. Passmark multithread confirms the pattern with a 20.9% gap (28986 versus 23975).

The Cinebench results are more nuanced. In R15 multi-core, AMD leads 2672.5 to 2360, a 13.2% margin. In R23 multi-core, the gap narrows to 10.8% (17462.5 versus 15764). The R23 single-core test shows AMD ahead by 16.1% (1996.5 versus 1719), which is surprising given that Intel wins the R15 single-core test. This inconsistency suggests that the R23 workload is more sensitive to architectural differences, and Zen 5's instruction handling gives AMD a larger advantage in that specific test.

The Intel Core 7 240H's wins are narrow. Passmark physics shows Intel ahead by 2% (1723 versus 1689), a marginal edge that could stem from clock speed advantages in short bursts. Passmark single-thread and Cinebench R15 single-core both show Intel ahead by 0.8%, which is within normal run-to-run variation but still recorded as a win. The pattern is clear: Intel takes lightly threaded tests by small margins, while AMD wins heavily threaded and instruction-heavy tests by double digits.

Specification Differences

The core counts are identical at 10, but the thread counts diverge: AMD provides 20 threads, Intel provides 16. This stems from AMD's simultaneous multithreading implementation, which doubles threads per core, while Intel's Raptor Lake design uses a hybrid core arrangement that does not double all threads.

Clock speeds favor Intel. The Core 7 240H has a 2.50 GHz base clock and 5.20 GHz boost clock, compared to AMD's 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. Despite Intel's higher clocks, AMD wins most benchmarks, which indicates that IPC and thread scaling matter more than raw frequency in these workloads.

Thermal design power differs substantially. AMD lists 28 watts, Intel lists 45 watts. This means the AMD part is designed for lower power envelopes, which typically translates to better battery life in mobile systems, though the database does not include battery test results.

Memory support separates the two. AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5, but no bandwidth figure is recorded. The Intel part's DDR4 compatibility is notable for systems reusing older memory modules.

PCIe generations differ. AMD uses Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, Intel uses Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. Intel's newer PCIe generation offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but AMD provides double the lane count for CPU-attached devices.

The socket and process node also differ. AMD uses Socket FP8 and a 4 nm TSMC process. Intel uses BGA 1744 and a 10 nm Intel process. The die size is recorded for AMD at 233 mm², while Intel's die size is not listed.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 uses Zen 5 architecture under the Gorgon Point codename, part of the Ryzen AI 400 generation. The Intel Core 7 240H uses Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-H codename, part of the Core 7 Raptor Lake Refresh generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies.

AMD's Zen 5 is built on a 4 nm process from TSMC, enabling higher transistor density and better power efficiency. This explains how the AMD part achieves strong multi-threaded performance at 28 watts TDP. The cache layout reflects a per-core design: 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The total L3 is smaller than Intel's, but AMD's data shows it is sufficient for the workloads tested.

Intel's Raptor Lake is built on a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry. The cache layout differs: 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. Intel's larger L3 cache (24 MB versus 16 MB) does not translate into benchmark wins, suggesting that AMD's architecture uses its smaller cache more efficiently or that the benchmark workloads favor AMD's memory subsystem.

Thread management is another key difference. AMD's 20 threads come from 10 full cores with SMT. Intel's 16 threads come from a hybrid arrangement of performance and efficiency cores, a design that prioritizes power savings but limits thread count. The database shows that AMD's approach wins in every multi-threaded test where the two overlap.

Integrated graphics differ as well. AMD uses Radeon 880M, Intel uses Iris Xe Graphics 64EU. Both target mobile systems, but their performance characteristics are not covered by the recorded benchmarks. The memory bandwidth advantage for AMD (89.6 GB/s versus no recorded figure for Intel) could influence iGPU performance, but that remains speculative without direct benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner in the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465. It wins 11 of 15 head-to-head benchmarks, often by large margins. Its 46.6% lead in extended instructions, 28.6% lead in data compression, and 29.5% lead in random string sorting are decisive advantages for anyone running computation-heavy or data-processing workloads. The 20.9% multithread advantage and 10.8% Cinebench R23 multi-core lead confirm that multi-threaded productivity favors AMD.

The Intel Core 7 240H is the pick for lightly threaded workloads where its higher boost clock and base clock matter. Its wins in Passmark single-thread and Cinebench R15 single-core are narrow but consistent. The physics test win by 2% suggests that certain simulation workloads respond better to Intel's clock speed. However, these wins are small and do not offset the large multi-threaded deficits.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the verdict. AMD's 43431 average score versus Intel's 31483 represents a 38% gap. AMD sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, Intel in the 82nd. The nearest rivals for AMD include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 with a delta of 0.2% and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H with a delta of 0.5%, indicating that AMD is in strong company. Intel's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 and AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX, both with 0% delta, showing that the Core 7 240H sits in a lower performance tier.

The 28-watt TDP for AMD versus 45 watts for Intel adds another dimension. AMD delivers higher performance while drawing less power, a combination that matters in mobile systems where thermal limits and battery life are constraints. Intel's higher TDP may allow for sustained clocks in short bursts, as seen in the single-thread wins, but it comes at an efficiency cost.

For buyers, the choice depends on workload. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 is the right selection for multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and instruction-heavy scientific computing. The Intel Core 7 240H serves well in scenarios dominated by single-thread performance or physics simulation, but its advantages are too small to recommend it for general productivity. The recorded data leaves little ambiguity: AMD wins the majority of tests, wins them by larger margins, and does so at lower power.