AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225T Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T as the stronger overall performer. It wins 11 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench workload and the PassMark multithread, single-thread, physics, encryption, and prime number tests. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins only 4 tests, all in PassMark workloads: data compression, extended instructions, integer math, and random string sorting.

The Intel part’s wins are often decisive. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 225T scores 21971 versus 13013 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 40.8% advantage. The single-core gap is even larger at 43.8%, with scores of 3101 versus 1742. This makes the Intel processor the clear choice for rendering, compilation, and any workload that scales with both multi-threaded throughput and per-core speed.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 does hold specific advantages. Its integer math score of 73189 beats the Intel part’s 59543 by 22.9%, and it leads in data compression by 14.5% (267963 versus 233998). These wins suggest the AMD chip handles integer-heavy, compression-focused tasks with greater efficiency. However, these victories are narrower in scope and do not offset the Intel part’s dominance in the more broadly recognized Cinebench and PassMark aggregate measures.

The percentile data reinforces the split. The Ryzen 5 240 sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core Ultra 5 225T sits at the 82nd percentile. Despite the lower percentile, the Intel chip delivers higher absolute scores in most tests. The average benchmark score favors AMD slightly: 33542 for the Ryzen 5 240 versus 30468 for the Core Ultra 5 225T. This discrepancy comes from the AMD part’s large wins in data compression and integer math, which boost its average despite losing the majority of individual tests.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in Cinebench-class workloads, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is the data-backed pick. For users focused on integer math, compression, or string sorting, the AMD Ryzen 5 240 offers measurable advantages. The Intel chip also consumes more power (65 W TDP versus 45 W), which may matter in thermally constrained environments, but the benchmark data shows it converts that headroom into substantially higher performance in most tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more individual benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T wins 11 of the 15 head-to-head tests, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins 4.

Q: How large is the Intel chip’s lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225T scores 21971 against 13013 for the Ryzen 5 240, a 40.8% advantage.

Q: In which workloads does the AMD Ryzen 5 240 outperform the Intel chip?

A: The AMD part wins in PassMark data compression (267963 versus 233998, up 14.5%), integer math (73189 versus 59543, up 22.9%), random string sorting (32385 versus 28774, up 12.5%), and extended instructions (20201 versus 20083, up 0.6%).

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T scores 4348 in PassMark single-thread, 15.5% higher than the Ryzen 5 240’s 3675. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel chip leads by 43.8% (3101 versus 1742).

Q: How do their overall database percentiles compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is at the 82nd percentile.

Q: Which chip has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has an average benchmark score of 33542, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T averages 30468.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process also at TSMC. The Intel die is larger at 243 mm² but packs fewer transistors at 17,800 million.

Core topology differs sharply. The AMD part has 6 cores and 12 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to reach its thread count. The Intel part has 10 cores and 10 threads, with no multithreading, meaning each physical core corresponds to exactly one thread. Despite having 4 fewer threads, the Intel chip wins the majority of multi-threaded tests, indicating higher per-core throughput in this configuration.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Ryzen 5 240 allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 225T uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip’s larger L3 pool and greater per-core L2 allocation likely contribute to its single-thread and multi-thread performance advantages.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD part carries a Radeon 760M, while the Intel part uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units. Both support DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, but the Intel chip has higher memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s.

PCIe connectivity also separates the two. The Ryzen 5 240 provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 225T provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Intel part’s newer PCIe generation offers greater interface bandwidth for compatible devices.

Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, indicating a mobile-oriented package, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The AMD chip’s market segment is listed as Mobile, and the Intel chip’s as Desktop.

Specification Differences

The table below summarizes only the fields where the two processors differ.

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 240 | Intel Core Ultra 5 225T |

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

| Cores | 6 | 10 |

| Threads | 12 | 10 |

| Base clock | 4.30 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 178 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 16 MB shared | 20 MB shared |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 760M | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2024-12-31 |

| Part number | 100-000001727 | unknown |

Both support DDR5 memory, use dual-channel buses, lack ECC support, and have locked multipliers. The AMD chip has a higher boost clock by 0.10 GHz, but the Intel chip has a higher base clock advantage reversed: the AMD base is 4.30 GHz versus 2.50 GHz for Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2214 against 2078 for the AMD part, a 6.1% lead. In R15 single-core, the margin grows to 13.5% (312 versus 270). The R23 results are dramatically lopsided: multi-core shows 21971 versus 13013 (40.8% lead), and single-core shows 3101 versus 1742 (43.8% lead). These are the largest percentage gaps in the entire comparison.

PassMark results tell a more mixed story. The Intel chip wins PassMark multithread with 25358 versus 22658, a 10.6% margin. It also wins single-thread at 4348 versus 3675, a 15.5% lead (identical for both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread). Floating point math goes strongly to Intel: 82751 versus 45301, a 45.3% lead. Physics also favors Intel heavily: 2053 versus 1060, a 48.4% lead. Data encryption goes to Intel by 13.3% (18289 versus 15849). Find prime numbers is the most extreme Intel win: 284 versus 70, a 75.4% margin.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 wins the remaining four tests. Integer math is its largest victory: 73189 versus 59543, a 22.9% lead. Data compression follows at 267963 versus 233998, up 14.5%. Random string sorting goes to AMD at 32385 versus 28774, a 12.5% lead. Extended instructions is the narrowest AMD win: 20201 versus 20083, just 0.6% ahead.

The win count (11 for Intel, 4 for AMD) aligns with the aggregate Cinebench results but conflicts with the average benchmark score, where AMD leads 33542 to 30468. This occurs because AMD’s wins in data compression and integer math are large absolute values that pull its average upward, even though Intel wins more tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is the choice for single-thread-sensitive applications. Its 43.8% Cinebench R23 single-core lead and 15.5% PassMark single-thread lead indicate strong responsiveness in lightly threaded workflows. The physics test result, a 48.4% advantage (2053 versus 1060), points to clear superiority in simulation and physics-based workloads. Floating point math, where Intel leads by 45.3%, covers scientific computing, 3D rendering, and numerical analysis. The 75.4% margin in find prime numbers suggests Intel’s integer and algorithmic throughput in that specific workload is far ahead. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result, a 40.8% lead, makes the Intel part the stronger option for video encoding, 3D rendering, and software compilation that scale across cores.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is the better fit for integer-heavy data processing. Its 22.9% integer math lead (73189 versus 59543) indicates an advantage in general arithmetic and logic operations. Data compression, where AMD leads by 14.5%, is a direct win for archiving, database storage, and file transfer workloads. Random string sorting, up 12.5%, suggests AMD handles sorting and text-processing tasks more efficiently. The extended instructions win, small at 0.6%, shows near-parity with Intel in workloads using advanced CPU instruction sets.

The market segment difference also matters. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is a mobile part on Socket FP8, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is a desktop part on Socket 1851. The AMD chip’s lower 45 W TDP makes it more suitable for mobile or thermally constrained systems, while the Intel chip’s 65 W TDP aligns with desktop designs that can supply more power. The data shows Intel delivers higher performance in most tests while using 20 W more TDP headroom.

For users who need the highest Cinebench-class throughput, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is the clear winner. For users whose workloads center on integer math, compression, and string sorting, the AMD Ryzen 5 240 provides measurable, though narrower, advantages.