CPU Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 and AMD A10-9700E are two very different processors that end up in a near-dead heat. The data shows the R1600 wins every single Cinebench comparison, but by margins so slim they are practically statistical noise. With an average benchmark score of 958 against 951, the R1600 holds a 0.7% lead, placing it at the 26th percentile versus the A10-9700E’s 25th. The verdict is clear: this is not a contest of raw speed, but a choice between two distinct architectures with different strengths beyond pure compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent across all five Cinebench tests, with the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 taking a clean sweep. The largest margin comes in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the R1600 scores 165 against the A10-9700E’s 163, a 1.2% advantage. This is the only test where the delta exceeds 1%, indicating that the R1600’s Zen architecture has a slight edge in lightly-threaded workloads.

In the multi-core tests, the margins tighten further. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the R1600 at 280 versus 278 for the A10-9700E, a 0.7% lead. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test repeats this pattern with scores of 1169 and 1160, an 0.8% difference. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows 2784 for the R1600 and 2762 for the A10-9700E, again an 0.8% gap. The single-core R23 test rounds out the sweep with 393 versus 390, an 0.8% lead.

What makes these results surprising is the core count disparity. The A10-9700E has four physical cores, while the R1600 has only two. However, the R1600 compensates with simultaneous multithreading, giving it four threads total. The data suggests that the R1600’s newer Zen architecture is more efficient per thread, allowing it to outpace the older Excavator design even with fewer physical cores. The R1600’s nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 4386 and Intel Core i7-950, both with average scores of 957, placing it just 0.1% ahead of those older high-end parts.

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the benchmark data, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins every workload category tested. It is ahead in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests. There is no test in the fact pack where the A10-9700E comes out on top. The R1600’s single-core advantage, though small, is consistent across both R20 and R23 tests, suggesting a modest but real IPC advantage for the Zen architecture.

However, the A10-9700E wins in areas not covered by these benchmarks. It includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, a feature entirely absent from the R1600. This makes the A10-9700E a more complete package for a system without a discrete GPU. The A10-9700E also has a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz, compared to the R1600’s 2.60 GHz and 3.10 GHz respectively. While this does not translate into a benchmark win, it does indicate the A10-9700E is designed for a different operating profile, potentially offering better responsiveness in lightly-threaded tasks that do not scale with IPC improvements.

The A10-9700E’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-5500U with a score of 953, placing the A10-9700E 0.2% behind that part. It also sits 0.4% behind the Intel Xeon W3570 and Intel Celeron N5105, both scoring 955. This places the A10-9700E in a very crowded performance band where single-digit differences in average score separate many processors.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different eras of AMD design. The Ryzen Embedded R1600 uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process node, built by GlobalFoundries. It has a die size of 148 mm² and contains 3,500 million transistors. The A10-9700E uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process node, also from GlobalFoundries, with a much larger die size of 250 mm² and 3,100 million transistors. The smaller process node gives the R1600 a significant efficiency advantage, which is reflected in its 25 W TDP versus the A10-9700E’s 35 W TDP.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The R1600 has a per-core L1 cache of 96 KB and per-core L2 cache of 512 KB, backed by a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The A10-9700E has a total L1 cache of 320 KB and a total L2 cache of 2 MB, with no L3 cache at all. The presence of an L3 cache in the R1600 is a notable architectural advantage, as it allows for more efficient data sharing between cores and threads.

Memory support is similar on paper, with both supporting DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. However, the R1600 supports ECC memory, while the A10-9700E does not. Both use PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes. The R1600 is a mobile segment part on socket AMD Socket FP5, while the A10-9700E is a desktop part on socket AMD Socket AM4. The R1600 was released in 2020, while the A10-9700E came three years earlier in 2017.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has an average benchmark score of 958, which is 0.7% higher than the AMD A10-9700E’s 951.

Q: Does the A10-9700E ever beat the R1600 in any Cinebench test?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark data shows the R1600 winning all five tests, with deltas ranging from 0.7% to 1.2%.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two processors?

A: The R1600 has a TDP of 25 W, while the A10-9700E has a TDP of 35 W. The R1600 consumes 10 W less under its rated thermal design power.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD A10-9700E includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The R1600 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: How does the core and thread count compare?

A: The A10-9700E has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the R1600 has 2 cores and 4 threads due to simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 supports ECC memory. The A10-9700E does not support ECC.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The R1600 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the A10-9700E has 4 cores and 4 threads. The A10-9700E has a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost clock of 3.50 GHz, compared to the R1600’s 2.60 GHz and 3.10 GHz. The R1600 has a lower TDP of 25 W versus 35 W for the A10-9700E. Their sockets are incompatible: the R1600 uses AMD Socket FP5, while the A10-9700E uses AMD Socket AM4.

The process node differs significantly, with the R1600 on 14 nm and the A10-9700E on 28 nm. The R1600 has a smaller die size of 148 mm² and more transistors (3,500 million) compared to the A10-9700E’s 250 mm² die and 3,100 million transistors. Cache layouts are completely different: the R1600 has 96 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core with 4 MB shared L3, while the A10-9700E has 320 KB total L1 and 2 MB total L2 with no L3. Only the R1600 supports ECC memory. The A10-9700E is the only one with integrated Radeon R7 graphics. Their release dates are 2020 for the R1600 and 2017 for the A10-9700E. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both support DDR4 dual-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded, but the margins are negligible. With a 0.7% lead in average score and a maximum single-test advantage of 1.2%, the R1600’s performance advantage is real but imperceptible in real-world use. Its 14 nm Zen architecture, L3 cache, and ECC support make it the more modern and feature-rich processor from a technical standpoint.

However, the A10-9700E is not without merit. It offers integrated Radeon R7 graphics, which the R1600 completely lacks. For a system that does not use a discrete GPU, the A10-9700E provides a complete solution out of the box. Its higher clock speeds and additional physical cores may also offer advantages in scenarios not captured by Cinebench, such as certain legacy software that does not benefit from SMT.

The choice depends on the use case. For embedded applications where ECC memory, lower power consumption, and a smaller process node are critical, the R1600 is the clear pick. Its 25 W TDP and 2020 release date make it a modern solution for compact, power-sensitive designs. For a desktop system where integrated graphics are necessary and the older 28 nm process is acceptable, the A10-9700E delivers nearly identical Cinebench performance. The 0.7% average score difference and 1.2% maximum delta mean that neither processor will disappoint in general productivity, but the R1600’s architectural advantages make it the superior choice for those who prioritize efficiency and data integrity over the convenience of integrated graphics.