AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core 9 273PTE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core 9 273PTE across all 15 shared benchmark tests. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 does not register a single victory in any measured workload. The margins are substantial, but the distribution of those margins reveals distinct patterns.

The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where Intel scores 2886 against AMD's 1150, a delta of -60.2%. That same test in multi-core shows Intel at 20445 versus AMD's 4841, a -76.3% difference, which is the largest percentage gap in the entire set. Cinebench R15 multi-core tells a similar story: Intel posts 2060, AMD manages 790, for a -61.7% delta.

The PassMark suite reinforces the pattern. Floating point math shows Intel at 60673 versus AMD's 15194, a -75% delta. Physics testing reveals Intel at 1917 against AMD's 432, a -77.5% gap. Prime number finding, a heavily integer-bound operation, shows Intel at 142 versus AMD's 20, a -85.9% delta, the single most lopsided result in the comparison.

Some workloads show relatively narrower gaps. PassMark single-thread has Intel at 3433 versus AMD's 2477, a -27.8% delta, the smallest margin recorded. Data compression shows Intel at 258704 against AMD's 141533, a -45.3% delta. Random string sorting lands at -47.8%, with Intel scoring 28973 and AMD 15124.

The mid-range gaps cluster around 53% to 62%. Data encryption shows Intel at 14253 versus AMD's 6646, a -53.4% delta. Extended instructions give Intel 15952 against AMD's 6437, a -59.6% delta. Integer math and Cinebench R15 multi-core both sit at -61.7%, with Intel scoring 82411 and 2060 respectively, while AMD manages 31598 and 790.

PassMark multi-thread shows Intel at 24054 versus AMD's 9341, a -61.2% delta. The average benchmark scores confirm the overall picture: Intel's average sits at 31143, while AMD's is 15882. The percentile ranking places Intel at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, while AMD sits at the 70th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. AMD uses a 4-core, 8-thread configuration built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Mendocino, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Intel counters with a 12-core, 24-thread layout on the Bartlett Lake architecture, produced on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundries.

The core count disparity is the most obvious architectural split. Intel's 12 cores triple AMD's 4 cores, and its 24 threads triple AMD's 8 threads. This directly explains the multi-threaded benchmark gaps. Clock behavior differs sharply as well: AMD has a base clock of 2.80 GHz with a boost of 4.30 GHz, while Intel starts lower at 1.40 GHz base but boosts much higher to 5.50 GHz. The lower base clock with higher boost suggests Intel relies on aggressive turbo behavior, while AMD maintains a more consistent baseline frequency.

Cache hierarchies diverge considerably. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. Intel offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference is stark: 36 MB versus 4 MB, a ninefold advantage for Intel that likely contributes to its data-heavy workload wins.

Memory support differs in both type and bandwidth. AMD supports LPDDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, delivering 88.0 GB/s. Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The bandwidth figures are close, but the flexibility of supporting two memory standards gives Intel broader platform compatibility. Intel also supports ECC memory, while AMD does not.

PCIe connectivity shows a major gap. AMD provides Gen 3 with 4 lanes from the CPU. Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes. This represents both a generational leap in per-lane bandwidth and a fourfold increase in lane count. Integrated graphics also differ: AMD uses Radeon 610M, Intel uses UHD Graphics 730.

The socket and market positioning further separate them. AMD uses Socket FT6, a mobile-oriented package, and is classified as a Mobile segment part. Intel uses Socket 1700, a desktop socket, and is classified as Desktop. AMD's die size is listed at 100 mm², while Intel's is not recorded. The release dates also differ: AMD entered the database on 2025-09-30, Intel on 2026-03-08.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a clean partition of workloads, with Intel taking every category. However, the magnitude of Intel's advantage varies by workload type, which clarifies where each processor's design strengths lie.

Intel wins decisively in heavily parallel workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows Intel at 20445 versus AMD's 4841, a -76.3% delta. PassMark multi-thread gives Intel 24054 against AMD's 9341, a -61.2% delta. The 12-core, 24-thread configuration dominates in rendering and thread-saturated tasks. AMD's 4-core, 8-thread design cannot compete in this space, and the data reflects that clearly.

Intel's advantage narrows somewhat in single-threaded work. PassMark single-thread shows the smallest gap at -27.8%, with Intel scoring 3433 and AMD 2477. Cinebench R23 single-core still favors Intel heavily at -60.2%, but the PassMark result suggests AMD's Zen 2 cores are relatively competitive on a per-thread basis in certain instruction mixes. The boost clock difference of 4.30 GHz versus 5.50 GHz likely explains much of the remaining gap.

Data-heavy workloads show Intel's cache advantage. Data compression gives Intel 258704 versus AMD's 141533, a -45.3% delta. Random string sorting shows a -47.8% delta. The 36 MB L3 versus 4 MB L3 difference appears to pay dividends when working sets exceed AMD's cache capacity. Extended instructions also favor Intel at -59.6%, suggesting the newer architecture handles complex instruction sequences more efficiently.

Integer-heavy and floating-point-heavy workloads show wide Intel margins. Integer math gives Intel 82411 versus AMD's 31598, a -61.7% delta. Floating point math shows Intel at 60673 versus AMD's 15194, a -75% delta. Prime number finding, which stresses integer throughput, shows the largest gap at -85.9%. Physics simulation also heavily favors Intel at -77.5%.

The data implies AMD's design targets efficiency and basic productivity rather than peak performance. The 15-watt TDP, 4-core layout, and mobile socket suggest a low-power part intended for thin-and-light systems. Intel's 45-watt TDP, 12-core layout, and desktop socket point toward a performance-oriented desktop processor. The benchmark data simply reflects those design intents.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has an average benchmark score of 31143, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 averages 15882. Intel's average is roughly double AMD's.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where Intel scores 142 and AMD scores 20, a -85.9% delta.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark tests against Intel?

A: No. Across all 15 head-to-head benchmark tests, the Intel Core 9 273PTE wins every single one. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 records zero wins.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, triple the core count and triple the thread count.

Q: What are the cache differences between the two processors?

A: AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Intel supports ECC memory. AMD does not list ECC support in the recorded data.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous picture. The Intel Core 9 273PTE outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 40 in every measured benchmark, with margins ranging from -27.8% in PassMark single-thread to -85.9% in prime number finding. The average benchmark score of 31143 versus 15882 places Intel at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, while AMD sits at the 70th percentile.

The architectural differences explain the performance split. Intel's 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with 36 MB of L3 cache and a 5.50 GHz boost clock, deliver overwhelming advantages in multi-threaded, cache-sensitive, and high-frequency workloads. AMD's 4 cores, 8 threads, 4 MB of L3, and 4.30 GHz boost clock cannot match those resources. The 6 nm process versus 10 nm process does not compensate for the core and cache deficits.

The nearest rival data for each processor confirms their respective performance tiers. Intel's closest rivals include the Intel Core i7-12700F at 31081, the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS at 31074, and the Intel Core i7-13700TE at 31028, all within 0.4% of Intel's score. AMD's closest rivals include the AMD EPYC 75F3 at 15859 and the AMD EPYC 9354P at 15826, also within 0.4%. These comparisons place each processor in its appropriate performance class.

The market segment data reinforces the intended use cases. AMD is a mobile part with a 15-watt TDP, targeting low-power portable systems. Intel is a desktop part with a 45-watt TDP, targeting full-sized desktop builds. The benchmark results align with those positioning choices. The Intel launch MSRP is $549.

The choice between these processors is not a question of performance, which clearly favors Intel, but of platform and power requirements. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 serves mobile designs where power efficiency and compact packaging matter more than raw throughput. The Intel Core 9 273PTE serves desktop workloads where multi-threaded performance and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity are priorities. The recorded data shows no scenario where AMD wins a benchmark, but its lower TDP and mobile socket make it the only option for its intended form factor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 40 | Intel Core 9 273PTE |

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

| Cores | 4 | 12 |

| Threads | 8 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 1.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FT6 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Bartlett Lake |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 100 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 88.0 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 4 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 610M | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-09-30 | 2026-03-08 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $549 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | Unknown | SA4QJ |