Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core i7-12700F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is decisively one-sided. The Intel Core i7-12700F wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core 7 240H taking only three. However, the margins tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count suggests.

The i7-12700F's largest victory comes in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 24,783 against the 240H's 16,897 — a 31.8% advantage. This is its most dominant performance. Data compression follows closely, with the desktop part scoring 384,463 versus 271,774, a 29.3% gap. Floating point math shows a 28% lead (81,804 vs 58,905), while random string sorting favors the i7-12700F by 27.6% (39,852 vs 28,866).

The 240H's defeats are not close in most multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i7-12700F scores 10,767 against 8,562 — a 20.5% margin. PassMark multithread shows 30,445 versus 23,975, a 21.3% deficit for the mobile chip. Data encryption and integer math both show 24.9% gaps in favor of the desktop processor (20,185 vs 15,155, and 107,013 vs 80,396, respectively). Even the single-threaded PassMark test, typically a strength for newer architectures, favors the i7-12700F, albeit narrowly at 3,850 versus 3,782 (1.8%).

There is one notable reversal. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 240H wins 15,764 to 15,291 — a 3.1% advantage. This is the only Cinebench multi-core test the 240H wins, and it comes despite losing R15 multi-core by 9.6% (2,360 vs 2,610) and R20 multi-core by 20.5%. The result is surprising given the pattern elsewhere, but it is consistent with the data.

The 240H also wins PassMark physics with 1,723 versus 1,488, a 15.8% margin. This is its second-largest win. The third and final victory is PassMark find prime numbers, where the 240H scores 102 against 98, a 4.1% edge.

Single-threaded Cinebench results favor the i7-12700F across the board. R15 single-core shows 271 versus 249 (8.1%), R20 single-core shows 1,519 versus 1,208 (20.5%), and R23 single-core shows 1,898 versus 1,719 (9.4%). The R20 single-core gap is particularly stark, matching the multi-core deficit exactly at 20.5%.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core i7-12700F is the stronger processor for nearly every workload measured. It wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, and its victories are often substantial — exceeding 20% in seven tests. The 240H's wins are either narrow (3.1% and 4.1%) or isolated to a single test (physics at 15.8%).

Users who prioritize multi-threaded throughput — whether in rendering, compression, or general math workloads — should select the i7-12700F. The PassMark multithread score of 30,445 versus 23,975 leaves no ambiguity. The same applies to those who need encryption performance; the 24.9% gap in data encryption is significant.

The 240H is only the better choice in three specific scenarios. If Cinebench R23 multi-core is the primary benchmark, the 240H wins by 3.1%. If physics simulation is the main task, the 15.8% advantage matters. And for prime number calculation, the 4.1% edge is real but narrow. These are not compelling reasons to choose a processor that loses two-thirds of the head-to-head tests.

Both processors sit at the 82nd percentile against all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close (31,483 for the 240H vs 31,081 for the i7-12700F). But the head-to-head data reveals that the i7-12700F's performance is more consistent across diverse workloads. The 240H's average is propped up by its three wins, while the i7-12700F delivers competitive or superior results almost everywhere.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures. The Core 7 240H is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H variant, part of the Raptor Lake Refresh generation. The Core i7-12700F uses Alder Lake, in its Alder Lake-S desktop form.

The process node is nominally the same — both use 10 nm Intel manufacturing. The die size differs, with the i7-12700F measuring 215 mm² while the 240H has no listed die size. Both use Intel as the foundry.

Core counts differ meaningfully. The 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the i7-12700F has 12 cores and 20 threads. This four-thread advantage helps explain the i7-12700F's multi-threaded dominance in most tests.

Cache configurations also differ. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core, but the L2 cache is 2 MB per core on the 240H versus 1.25 MB per core on the i7-12700F. The L3 cache is slightly larger on the i7-12700F at 25 MB shared, compared to 24 MB shared on the 240H.

The integrated graphics situation is a major differentiator. The 240H includes Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The i7-12700F has no integrated graphics at all — the "F" suffix indicates this. Users must pair the i7-12700F with a discrete GPU.

PCIe lanes differ significantly. The 240H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-12700F offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The desktop part has double the CPU-attached PCIe bandwidth.

Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, and neither supports ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 10 (240H) vs 12 (i7-12700F)
• Threads: 16 (240H) vs 20 (i7-12700F)
• Base clock: 2.50 GHz (240H) vs 2.10 GHz (i7-12700F)
• Boost clock: 5.20 GHz (240H) vs 4.90 GHz (i7-12700F)
• TDP: 45 W (240H) vs 65 W (i7-12700F)
• Socket: Intel BGA 1744 (240H) vs Intel Socket 1700 (i7-12700F)
• Architecture: Raptor Lake (240H) vs Alder Lake (i7-12700F)
• Generation: Core 7 Raptor Lake Refresh (240H) vs Core i7 Alder Lake-S (i7-12700F)
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (240H) vs 1.25 MB per core (i7-12700F)
• L3 cache: 24 MB (240H) vs 25 MB (i7-12700F)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 8 lanes (240H) vs Gen 5, 16 lanes (i7-12700F)
• Integrated graphics: Iris Xe 64EU (240H) vs none (i7-12700F)
• Market segment: Mobile (240H) vs Desktop (i7-12700F)
• Release date: 2024-12-17 (240H) vs 2022-01-03 (i7-12700F)
• Launch MSRP: $502 (240H) vs $324 (i7-12700F)
• Die size: not listed (240H) vs 215 mm² (i7-12700F)

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 7 240H wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 15,764 points versus 15,291 for the i7-12700F, a 3.1% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the i7-12700F in data compression?

A: The i7-12700F scores 384,463 in PassMark data compression versus 271,774 for the 240H, a 29.3% lead.

Q: Does the Core 7 240H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The i7-12700F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the core count difference?

A: The i7-12700F has 12 cores and 20 threads, while the 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The 240H boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the i7-12700F boosts to 4.90 GHz.

Q: How do they compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The i7-12700F wins all three Cinebench single-core tests: R15 by 8.1%, R20 by 20.5%, and R23 by 9.4%. PassMark single-thread also favors the i7-12700F, but only by 1.8%.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-12700F is the winner for the vast majority of use cases based on the benchmark data.

For content creation and rendering, the i7-12700F wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (2,610 vs 2,360) and R20 multi-core (10,767 vs 8,562). The only exception is R23 multi-core, where the 240H takes a 3.1% win. Video editors and 3D artists using Cinebench R23 specifically might prefer the 240H, but other rendering workloads favor the desktop part.

For data-heavy workloads, the i7-12700F is clearly superior. Data compression shows a 29.3% advantage, random string sorting a 27.6% edge, and integer math a 24.9% lead. Encryption work also favors the i7-12700F by 24.9%. Anyone dealing with archives, databases, or cryptographic operations should choose the i7-12700F.

For scientific and floating-point workloads, the i7-12700F wins floating point math by 28% (81,804 vs 58,905) and extended instructions by 31.8% (24,783 vs 16,897). The 240H's only math win is prime number finding, where it leads 102 to 98.

The 240H wins in three specific niches. Physics simulation is its strongest case, with a 15.8% advantage (1,723 vs 1,488). Cinebench R23 multi-core favors it by 3.1%. Prime number calculation gives it a 4.1% edge. These are narrow or isolated victories.

Users building a desktop system with a discrete GPU should strongly prefer the i7-12700F. It has 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 8, a 65W TDP suited for desktop cooling, and a Socket 1700 for standard motherboards. The lack of integrated graphics is irrelevant when a discrete GPU is already planned.

Users seeking a mobile processor with integrated graphics should consider the 240H. It is designed for the BGA 1744 socket, has a lower 45W TDP, and includes Iris Xe graphics. Its 5.20 GHz boost clock is also higher than the i7-12700F's 4.90 GHz, which helps explain its physics performance win.

The overall verdict from the data is unambiguous: the i7-12700F wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, often by wide margins. The 240H's three wins are real but do not offset the desktop part's dominance across every other measured workload.