AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 scores 33,542, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H scores 33,537 — a delta of 0%. Both sit in the 83rd and 84th percentiles of all CPUs, respectively, making them statistically inseparable in aggregate.

Q: Where does the AMD Ryzen 5 240 win decisively?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 dominates in Cinebench multi-core tests. It beats the Intel chip by 37.2% in R15 multi-core (2078 vs. 1515) and by 40.8% in R23 multi-core (13013 vs. 9240). That is a massive margin for a 6-core part.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H have any single-core advantage?

A: Yes, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel chip scores 1843 against AMD's 1742, a 5.5% lead. However, in R15 single-core, AMD wins 270 to 251, a 7.6% edge. The two trade blows depending on the workload.

Q: How do the two compare in encryption and compression tasks?

A: Intel wins both. Data encryption shows a 32.3% lead (23395 vs. 15849), and data compression is 10.3% faster (298850 vs. 267963). These are clear, if not overwhelming, Intel victories.

Q: Which CPU has more cores, and does that translate to more threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite fewer cores, AMD's simultaneous multithreading gives it a thread count closer to Intel's, yet Intel's raw core count shows in some multi-threaded PassMark tests.

Q: Is there a memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: Yes, the Intel chip supports 102.4 GB/s, while AMD lists 89.6 GB/s. Both are dual-channel, but Intel also supports LPDDR5X memory, which AMD does not list.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It packs 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H uses Arrow Lake architecture (specifically Arrow Lake-H) on a 3 nm process, also from TSMC, though Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size.

Core and cache structures diverge sharply. AMD offers 6 cores and 12 threads, with 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 16 MB shared L3. Intel provides 16 cores and 16 threads, with 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, plus 24 MB shared L3. The larger per-core caches on Intel suggest a design aimed at feeding more execution units, while AMD's lower core count relies on higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds tell a story of design philosophy. AMD runs a base clock of 4.30 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz. Intel runs much lower at 2.00 GHz base but boosts to 5.10 GHz. This means Intel's sustained frequency is far lower, which likely explains its weak multi-core Cinebench showing, while its boost clock edges out AMD for short single-thread bursts.

Memory and I/O also differ. AMD supports DDR5 only, while Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Intel also includes ECC memory support, which AMD lacks. PCIe lanes are Gen 4 on AMD versus Gen 5 on Intel, though both provide 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ too: AMD uses Radeon 760M, while Intel pairs with Arc Graphics 140T. Process nodes are close (4 nm vs. 3 nm), but Intel's smaller node does not translate into a performance-per-watt win in the data.

Where Each One Wins

AMD's Ryzen 5 240 is the multi-core rendering champion. In both Cinebench R15 and R23 multi-core tests, it wins by margins of 37.2% and 40.8%, respectively. That is not a small edge; it is a category-level difference. For anyone running CPU-bound render workloads, the AMD part is the clear choice based on these numbers.

Intel's Core Ultra 7 255H wins the broader set of PassMark workloads. It takes 12 of the 15 head-to-head benchmarks. The wins are especially large in floating-point math (54.1% ahead), physics (53% ahead), and prime number finding (76.9% ahead). These are compute-heavy, parallel-friendly tasks where Intel's 16 cores flex their muscle.

The split is not clean, though. Intel wins single-threaded PassMark (4317 vs. 3675, a 14.9% lead) and multi-threaded PassMark (30703 vs. 22658, a 26.2% lead). Yet AMD wins Cinebench multi-core decisively. The data suggests AMD's architecture is better at Cinebench's specific rendering workload, while Intel excels in the more varied PassMark suite.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 240 | Intel Core Ultra 7 255H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.30 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 28 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| 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) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 760M | Arc Graphics 140T |

The most striking differences are core count (6 vs. 16) and TDP (45 W vs. 28 W). AMD draws more power but has fewer cores, while Intel packs in more cores at a lower TDP. Clock speeds are reversed: AMD runs high base, Intel runs high boost. Cache sizes all favor Intel. Memory bandwidth and PCIe generation also favor Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided win for AMD is Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Ryzen 5 240 scores 13013, while the Intel chip scores 9240. That is a 40.8% delta, and it is not a fluke — Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the same pattern at 2078 vs. 1515, a 37.2% gap. AMD's 6 cores with 12 threads are somehow outpacing Intel's 16 cores and 16 threads in this rendering test. The data implies that AMD's Zen 4 cores are substantially more efficient per core for this workload, or that Intel's clock behavior under load is severely limiting.

Intel's biggest single win is PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 303 versus AMD's 70 — a 76.9% margin. That is the largest delta in the entire table. Floating-point math also favors Intel heavily: 98796 vs. 45301, a 54.1% lead. Physics follows at 2254 vs. 1060, a 53% edge. These are not close calls; Intel dominates in raw computational throughput for math-heavy tasks.

In single-thread tests, the picture is mixed. Cinebench R15 single-core goes to AMD (270 vs. 251, a 7.6% win), but Cinebench R23 single-core goes to Intel (1843 vs. 1742, a 5.5% win). PassMark single-thread also favors Intel at 4317 vs. 3675, a 14.9% margin. Intel's higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz likely explains its advantage in the newer single-thread tests.

Data encryption shows a 32.3% Intel lead (23395 vs. 15849), and data compression shows a 10.3% lead (298850 vs. 267963). Extended instructions favor Intel by 15% (23755 vs. 20201). Integer math is close — only 6.1% apart — but Intel still wins. Random string sorting is a 10.2% Intel edge. The only AMD wins are the two Cinebench multi-core tests and Cinebench R15 single-core.

The Verdict

If the workload is Cinebench-style rendering, the AMD Ryzen 5 240 is the obvious pick. It is 40.8% faster in R23 multi-core, which is a decisive margin for any rendering pipeline. Its lower average score (33,542 vs. 33,537, essentially tied) does not reflect this strength because the PassMark suite dilutes it.

If the workload is more general-purpose computing, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins more often. It takes 12 of 15 benchmarks, including all major PassMark tests. The wins in floating-point math, physics, and prime numbers are large enough to matter for scientific or engineering applications. Intel also offers higher memory bandwidth, ECC support, and PCIe Gen 5, which are meaningful for workstation-adjacent tasks.

The data suggests a trade-off between raw rendering speed (AMD) and broad compute versatility (Intel). For a user who prioritizes Cinebench-style performance, AMD is the answer. For anyone running varied math-heavy workloads or needing ECC memory and newer PCIe, Intel is the safer bet. The 0% average delta confirms these are closely matched parts, but the workload distribution points to clear, if different, strengths.