Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core i9-11900 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data splits these two Intel processors into nearly equal halves, with the Intel Core 7 240H taking 10 wins to 7 for the Intel Core i9-11900. The most dramatic single result belongs to the older desktop chip in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i9-11900 posts a 55.9% lead over the 240H. Scores of 2680 against 1719 tell the story clearly, but the margin is so wide in this specific test that it skews the overall interpretation toward the older architecture's favor.

The 240H strikes back just as hard in PassMark physics, where it finishes 43.3% ahead with 1723 points against 977. That gap is larger than any other multi-core win for the mobile part. The 240H also shows a 38.2% advantage in PassMark find prime numbers (102 vs. 63), a workload that rewards its hybrid core arrangement. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 240H leads by 18.9% (2360 vs. 1913), and in floating-point math it is 16.9% ahead (58905 vs. 48948).

The i9-11900 counters with a 20.4% win in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 18985 against 15764. This is the only multi-core Cinebench test the desktop part wins, which is notable because the 240H wins both R15 and R20 multi-core. The i9-11900 also takes extended instructions by 16.3% (19654 vs. 16897) and random string sorting by 14.5% (33054 vs. 28866). Smaller wins for the i9-11900 appear in data compression (4.9%, 285159 vs. 271774) and integer math (4.3%, 83893 vs. 80396).

The single-core picture is mixed. The i9-11900 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 8.4% (270 vs. 249), but the 240H wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 6.9% (1208 vs. 1125) and PassMark single-thread by 10.8% (3782 vs. 3373). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the result flips hard the other way: the i9-11900 leads by 55.9%, a contradiction with the other single-core tests that suggests the older chip's high boost frequency behaves differently under different workloads. The 240H also wins data encryption by 8% (15155 vs. 13942) and PassMark multithread by 6.3% (23975 vs. 22456).

The data also shows the i9-11900's average benchmark score sits at 32226, while the 240H averages 31483. Both land in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The i9-11900's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U at 32233 (0% delta), the Intel Core i5-14400F at 32279 (-0.2%), the Intel Core i7-12800H at 32121 (0.3%), and the Intel Core i5-14400 at 32115 (0.3%). The 240H's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 at 31473 (0%), the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495 (0%), the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31508 (-0.1%), and the Intel Core i5-13500 at 31510 (-0.1%).

Architecture Differences

The i9-11900 is built on Rocket Lake, Intel's 14 nm process, while the 240H uses Raptor Lake on a 10 nm node. That process gap explains much of the efficiency difference, though the desktop part has the advantage of a larger die at 276 mm². The 240H's die size is not recorded in the database. Both chips come from Intel foundries.

Core counts differ meaningfully: the i9-11900 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The extra two cores in the 240H are part of a hybrid arrangement typical of Raptor Lake, though the database does not break down performance versus efficiency cores. L1 cache per core is 64 KB on the i9-11900 versus 80 KB on the 240H. L2 cache per core is 512 KB on the i9-11900 versus 2 MB on the 240H, a fourfold difference. L3 cache totals 16 MB shared on the i9-11900 and 24 MB shared on the 240H, giving the mobile chip 8 MB more.

Clock speeds are identical on paper: both list a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The i9-11900 has a 65 W TDP, while the 240H draws 45 W, which is a meaningful difference for thermal design and sustained workloads. The i9-11900 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1200, while the 240H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1744. The i9-11900 is end-of-life, whereas the 240H is still active in production.

Memory support diverges: the i9-11900 supports DDR4 only, while the 240H supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The i9-11900's memory bandwidth is recorded at 51.2 GB/s, while the 240H's bandwidth is not listed. PCIe support also differs: the i9-11900 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 240H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 750 on the i9-11900 versus Iris Xe Graphics 64EU on the 240H.

Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The i9-11900 was released on 2021-03-15, while the 240H came later on 2024-12-17. The i9-11900's launch MSRP is $439, and the 240H's launch MSRP is $502.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-11900 is the stronger choice for legacy single-threaded workloads, especially those that rely on high boost clocks in Cinebench R23. Its 55.9% margin there is the largest in the entire comparison, and the 20.4% win in R23 multi-core confirms that the desktop chip can hold its own in modern rendering tasks despite being older. It also wins in data compression, extended instructions, integer math, and random string sorting, which points to a pattern: the i9-11900 excels in CPU-bound tasks that depend on instruction-level parallelism and cache-friendly data paths.

The 240H wins in physics, prime number finding, floating-point math, and data encryption. Its 43.3% lead in PassMark physics and 38.2% lead in prime numbers suggest that the additional cores and larger L2/L3 caches give it an edge in workloads that scale with core count and memory hierarchy. The 240H also wins PassMark multithread and both R15 and R20 multi-core tests, which reinforces the picture of a chip that handles parallel throughput well. For single-thread performance outside of Cinebench R23, the 240H actually leads in PassMark single-thread by 10.8%, so the i9-11900's single-core advantage is not universal.

For desktop users, the i9-11900's socket and desktop form factor make it relevant for existing LGA 1200 builds. For mobile users, the 240H's 45 W TDP and active production status mean it appears in current laptops. The i9-11900's end-of-life status limits new builds, but its higher average benchmark score (32226 vs. 31483) suggests it retains competitive performance in aggregate.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications. The i9-11900 has 8 cores, while the 240H has 10 cores. Threads are equal at 16. Base and boost clocks match at 2.50 GHz and 5.20 GHz. TDP differs: 65 W for the i9-11900, 45 W for the 240H. Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1200 versus Intel BGA 1744. Architecture differs: Rocket Lake versus Raptor Lake. Process node differs: 14 nm versus 10 nm. Die size is recorded only for the i9-11900 at 276 mm². L1 cache per core is 64 KB versus 80 KB. L2 cache per core is 512 KB versus 2 MB. L3 cache is 16 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 only versus DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s for the i9-11900, not recorded for the 240H. PCIe is Gen 4 with 20 lanes versus Gen 5 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 750 versus Iris Xe Graphics 64EU. Market segment is Desktop versus Mobile. Production status is End-of-life versus Active. Release dates are 2021-03-15 versus 2024-12-17. Launch MSRP is $439 versus $502. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. Part numbers are SRKNJ versus SRQ6TQ5ML.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900 has an average benchmark score of 32226, while the Intel Core 7 240H averages 31483.

Q: How much faster is the i9-11900 in Cinebench R23 single-core?

A: The i9-11900 scores 2680 versus the 240H's 1719, a 55.9% advantage.

Q: Does the 240H ever beat the i9-11900 in single-core tests?

A: Yes, the 240H wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 6.9% (1208 vs. 1125) and PassMark single-thread by 10.8% (3782 vs. 3373).

Q: What is the core count difference between the two?

A: The i9-11900 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The 240H has 24 MB shared L3 cache, while the i9-11900 has 16 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, neither the i9-11900 nor the 240H has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to two different user profiles. The Intel Core i9-11900 is the pick for anyone who already owns an LGA 1200 desktop system and wants maximum single-core performance in Cinebench R23, where its 55.9% lead is decisive. Its higher average benchmark score (32226 vs. 31483) and wins in data compression, extended instructions, integer math, and random string sorting make it a solid choice for CPU-heavy desktop tasks, despite being end-of-life.

The Intel Core 7 240H is the pick for mobile users who need a current, active processor with lower power draw (45 W vs. 65 W) and modern memory support including DDR5. Its wins in physics (43.3%), prime numbers (38.2%), floating-point math (16.9%), and PassMark multithread (6.3%) show it handles parallel workloads better overall. The 240H's 10-core layout and larger caches (24 MB L3, 2 MB L2 per core) give it an edge in scaling workloads, even though its Cinebench R23 multi-core score trails by 20.4%.

Neither chip is clearly dominant in aggregate: both sit at the 82nd percentile, and their nearest rivals in the database are close in average score. The i9-11900 edges out the 240H in overall average benchmark score by about 2.4%, but the 240H wins more individual tests (10 vs. 7). The deciding factor is not raw capability but context: desktop upgrade versus mobile purchase, legacy compatibility versus current platform support, and single-core rendering versus multi-core throughput. Choose the i9-11900 for existing socket 1200 builds and single-thread Cinebench work. Choose the 240H for new mobile systems and parallel workloads.