AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core 7 251TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clear overall picture: the Intel Core 7 251TE wins 12 of the 15 shared benchmark comparisons, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 takes only 3. However, the margin analysis reveals where each processor genuinely excels, and the two AMD victories are not trivial.

The largest single gap in the entire dataset is in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Intel part scores 3602 against AMD's 1742, a delta of -51.6% from AMD's perspective. That is a massive difference for a single-threaded workload, more than double the AMD score. The Cinebench R15 single-core test tells a similar story, with Intel at 362 versus AMD at 270, a -25.4% delta. These results indicate that the Intel Core 7 251TE has a commanding lead in lightly threaded performance, likely a consequence of its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz compared to AMD's 5.00 GHz.

Multi-core Cinebench results follow the same direction but with an even wider spread. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 25518 against AMD's 13013, a delta of -49%. The R15 multi-core test shows Intel at 2572 versus AMD at 2078, a -19.2% delta. The data suggests that the Intel processor's 24 cores and 32 threads provide a substantial advantage in heavily parallel rendering workloads, nearly doubling the AMD part's output in the newer R23 test.

PassMark's compute-oriented tests reinforce the Intel lead. In floating-point math, Intel scores 85607 versus AMD's 45301, a -47.1% delta. Integer math shows Intel at 125739 against AMD's 73189, a -41.8% delta. The physics test, which often reflects gaming-related simulation workloads, gives Intel 1938 versus AMD's 1060, a -45.3% delta. Prime number finding, another single-thread-sensitive test, shows Intel at 140 versus AMD's 70, a full -50% delta. Data encryption favors Intel at 22176 versus 15849, a -28.5% delta, and data compression gives Intel 334399 versus AMD's 267963, a -19.9% delta. Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive test, goes to Intel at 39643 versus 32385, an -18.3% delta. The multithread PassMark score shows Intel at 30022 versus AMD's 22658, a -24.5% delta.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins two PassMark tests outright. In extended instructions (SIMD-oriented), AMD scores 20201 against Intel's 16974, a 19% delta in AMD's favor. This is a notable counterpoint, suggesting that the AMD architecture handles certain vectorized instruction sets more efficiently. The other AMD win is in PassMark single-thread, where AMD scores 3675 versus Intel's 3568, a 3% delta. This is a slim margin, but it is a direct contradiction to the Cinebench single-core results, where Intel wins by a wide margin. The divergence between Cinebench R23 single-core and PassMark single-thread indicates that the two benchmarks stress different aspects of the pipeline; PassMark's single-thread suite appears less sensitive to the factors that give Intel its large Cinebench advantage.

Overall, the benchmark data shows a processor that dominates in most throughput and single-thread scenarios (Intel) against one that holds a specific edge in extended instruction execution and a narrow PassMark single-thread win (AMD).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has an average benchmark score of 41650, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has an average score of 33542, placing it in the 84th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in the nearest rival group for the Intel part?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE sits within a tight cluster. Its average score of 41650 is 0.1% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H (41621), 0.2% above the Intel Core i7-14650HX (41576), 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-12850HX (41779), and 0.6% above the Intel Core i7-14700T (41914). The deltas are all under 1%, indicating these are very closely matched parts.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark loss for the AMD Ryzen 5 240?

A: The largest deficit appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel part scores 25518 compared to AMD's 13013, a -49% delta. The Cinebench R23 single-core test also shows a massive gap at -51.6%.

Q: Is there any workload where the AMD Ryzen 5 240 clearly wins?

A: Yes, in the PassMark extended instructions test, AMD scores 20201 versus Intel's 16974, a 19% advantage. AMD also wins the PassMark single-thread test by 3% (3675 vs 3568).

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 supports DDR5 memory only. The Intel Core 7 251TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. Both use a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251TE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 does not support ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive overall performance advantage for the Intel Core 7 251TE. In nearly every compute-heavy benchmark, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark math and physics tests, the Intel part delivers scores that are 19% to 50% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 240. The Intel processor's 24 cores, 32 threads, and higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz appear to be the dominant factors in these results.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is the better choice only for workloads that specifically benefit from its extended instruction set handling, where it leads by 19%, and for the narrow PassMark single-thread scenario, where it leads by 3%. For any user prioritizing multi-threaded rendering, floating-point or integer math, physics simulation, data encryption, or compression, the Intel Core 7 251TE is the clear selection based on the recorded scores.

The Intel part also holds the higher percentile ranking (88th vs 84th) and a substantially higher average benchmark score (41650 vs 33542). The AMD part's wins are isolated and do not compensate for its losses in the other 12 comparisons. The verdict from the data is unambiguous: the Intel Core 7 251TE is the stronger processor in the vast majority of measured scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in core configuration. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks diverge sharply: AMD runs at 4.30 GHz, Intel at 1.40 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with AMD at 5.00 GHz and Intel at 5.40 GHz.

The process node differs: AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The die size is larger for Intel at 215 mm², compared to AMD's 178 mm². The transistor count is listed for AMD at 25,000 million, but no transistor count is recorded for the Intel part.

Cache configurations differ notably. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has more than double the L3 cache.

Memory support differs: AMD supports only DDR5, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. ECC memory is supported only on the Intel part. PCIe generation and lane counts differ: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: AMD uses Radeon 760M, Intel uses UHD Graphics 770.

The socket types are different: AMD uses AMD Socket FP8, while Intel uses Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part is classified as a Mobile segment processor, while the Intel part is classified as Desktop. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of none, while the Intel part has a launch MSRP of $384 (stated once here as recorded).

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is built on the Zen 4 architecture, with the codename Hawk Point. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core 7 251TE is built on the Bartlett Lake codename, with a 10 nm process from Intel. No architecture name is listed for the Intel part, but the codename and process node are distinct.

The core count difference is the most fundamental architectural divergence. AMD uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while Intel uses 24 cores and 32 threads. This 4:1 core ratio explains the massive multi-threaded performance gaps in Cinebench R23 and PassMark multithread tests. The Intel part's lower base clock of 1.40 GHz suggests a design that relies on many cores running at moderate speeds, while the AMD part's higher base clock of 4.30 GHz indicates a more traditional high-clock design with fewer cores.

The L3 cache difference is substantial: Intel has 36 MB shared, AMD has 16 MB shared. This larger cache may contribute to Intel's strong showing in data compression (334399 vs 267963) and random string sorting (39643 vs 32385), both of which can benefit from larger working sets in cache.

The Intel part supports ECC memory, which is absent on the AMD part. This feature, combined with the Desktop market segment classification and Intel Socket 1700, suggests the Intel part is positioned for workstation or server-like reliability use cases. The AMD part, classified as Mobile with AMD Socket FP8, is designed for portable systems.

PCIe generation differs: Intel offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes, AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes. This means Intel has a newer PCIe standard but fewer lanes. The integrated graphics also differ, with AMD providing Radeon 760M and Intel providing UHD Graphics 770, though no benchmark data is provided for either iGPU.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 251TE wins in every Cinebench test: R15 multi-core (2572 vs 2078), R15 single-core (362 vs 270), R23 multi-core (25518 vs 13013), and R23 single-core (3602 vs 1742). This makes it the clear choice for rendering workloads, 3D modeling, and video encoding that rely on Cinebench-style multi-threading.

Intel also wins all PassMark compute tests except extended instructions. The data shows Intel ahead in data compression (334399 vs 267963), data encryption (22176 vs 15849), prime number finding (140 vs 70), floating-point math (85607 vs 45301), integer math (125739 vs 73189), multithread (30022 vs 22658), physics (1938 vs 1060), and random string sorting (39643 vs 32385). These wins cover scientific computing, financial modeling, physics simulation, and general number-crunching tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins in PassMark extended instructions (20201 vs 16974), a 19% margin. This suggests AMD is better suited for workloads that heavily use SIMD or vectorized instruction sets, such as certain audio processing, image filters, or specialized scientific code that leverages those instructions. AMD also wins the PassMark single-thread test (3675 vs 3568) by 3%, indicating that for the specific mix of operations in that test, AMD's single-core execution is slightly more efficient.

For gaming, the physics test (a proxy for game simulation) heavily favors Intel at 1938 vs 1060, a -45.3% delta. This suggests Intel would provide better performance in game physics and AI workloads. The single-thread PassMark win for AMD is a narrow exception, but the Cinebench single-core results strongly favor Intel, which may matter for older games or poorly threaded engines.

The use-case split is clear: Intel for multi-threaded throughput, rendering, physics, and most compute tasks; AMD for extended instruction workloads and a specific set of single-thread operations where it edges out Intel by 3%. The database does not record any gaming-specific benchmarks beyond physics, but the physics delta is a strong indicator.