AMD A8-7670K vs AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 across all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, though the margins are consistently narrow. The largest single advantage appears in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the R1600 scores 165 against the A8-7670K's 162, a delta of 1.9%. This pattern of small but uniform superiority repeats in every other workload.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the R1600 posts 280 points versus 276 for the A8-7670K, a 1.4% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar story: 1169 for the R1600 against 1152, a 1.5% gap. The R23 multi-core result follows with 2784 versus 2745, again 1.4% in favor of the R1600. The R23 single-core test closes the gap slightly to 1.6%, with scores of 393 and 387 respectively.

What is notable here is not the magnitude of any single win, but the consistency. The R1600 wins all five benchmarks, yet the largest delta is under 2%. This suggests the two processors are closely matched in raw compute throughput for these rendering workloads, despite their architectural differences. The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this: the R1600 averages 958, while the A8-7670K averages 944, a difference of roughly 1.5% overall.

The percentile rankings also reflect near parity. The R1600 sits at the 26th percentile among all CPUs, while the A8-7670K ranks at the 25th. Both are positioned in the lower-middle range of the overall CPU landscape, meaning these are not high-end parts by current standards, but they are also not at the very bottom. The nearest rivals for the R1600 include the AMD Opteron 4386 and Intel Core i7-950, both with an average score of 957 and a delta of 0.1%, indicating the R1600 is effectively tied with those older server and desktop parts. For the A8-7670K, the nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-1110G4 at 945 with a delta of -0.1%, placing the A8 essentially at parity with that modern low-power mobile chip.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies within AMD's lineup. The Ryzen Embedded R1600 is built on the Zen architecture, specifically the Banded Kestrel variant from the 1000 series, using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,500 million transistors into a 148 mm² die. The A8-7670K, by contrast, uses the older Steamroller architecture under the Godaveri codename, fabricated on a 28 nm process with 2,411 million transistors spread across a larger 245 mm² die. The process node difference alone explains much of the efficiency gap: the R1600 draws 25 W TDP, while the A8-7670K consumes 95 W TDP, a fourfold difference.

Core configuration also diverges sharply. The R1600 has 2 physical cores with 4 threads via simultaneous multithreading, while the A8-7670K has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, meaning no SMT. Despite having half the physical cores, the R1600 matches or slightly exceeds the A8 in every benchmark, which speaks to the per-core efficiency of the Zen architecture versus the older Steamroller design. The cache hierarchy differs as well: the R1600 provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The A8-7670K offers 256 KB of L1 total and 4 MB of L2 total, with no L3 cache at all. The absence of L3 in the A8 is a significant architectural handicap, as the R1600 can rely on a shared pool of 4 MB L3 for frequently accessed data.

Memory support is another clear differentiator. The R1600 uses DDR4 memory with dual-channel support and a theoretical bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the A8-7670K is limited to DDR3 with dual-channel support and 34.1 GB/s. The R1600 also supports ECC memory, which the A8 lacks, making the embedded part more suitable for reliability-sensitive workloads. PCIe connectivity also differs: the R1600 provides 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the A8-7670K offers 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, giving the desktop part more expansion headroom. The A8 includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, whereas the R1600 has no integrated graphics, meaning the embedded chip requires a discrete GPU.

Socket and platform compatibility are entirely different. The R1600 uses AMD Socket FP5, a mobile/embedded socket, while the A8-7670K uses AMD Socket FM2+, a desktop socket that is now end-of-life. The A8 also has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the R1600 does not offer that flexibility. The release dates are far apart: the R1600 launched in February 2020, while the A8-7670K came out in July 2015, roughly five years earlier.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the R1600 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, the use-case split is not about performance superiority, but about platform characteristics and workload fit. The R1600 is the clear choice for embedded and mobile deployments where power consumption is critical. Its 25 W TDP versus the A8's 95 W TDP makes it dramatically more efficient for thermally constrained environments. The DDR4 memory support and ECC capability further tilt the scales toward the R1600 for server-like or industrial applications where data integrity matters.

The A8-7670K, despite losing every benchmark, still has its own niche. Its integrated Radeon R7 graphics means it can drive a display without a discrete GPU, which is a significant advantage for basic desktop systems or media centers where a separate graphics card is undesirable. The unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking, giving enthusiasts some headroom to extract additional performance. The 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also provide more expansion options for additional cards or peripherals compared to the R1600's 8 lanes.

In terms of raw compute, the benchmarks indicate near parity, with the R1600 holding a 1.4% to 1.9% edge depending on the test. For single-threaded workloads, the R1600's 1.9% lead in R20 single-core and 1.6% lead in R23 single-core suggest a modest per-core advantage that could matter for lightly threaded applications. For multi-threaded workloads, the R1600's 1.4% to 1.5% leads are similarly small, meaning neither processor has a decisive advantage in fully threaded rendering tasks.

The production status is a major factor in the split. The R1600 is listed as active, meaning it is still available for new designs, while the A8-7670K is end-of-life. This means the R1600 is the only realistic option for new products, while the A8 would only appear in legacy systems or used markets. The market segments also differ: the R1600 targets mobile and embedded applications, while the A8 targets desktop builds.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 scores 2784 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD A8-7670K scores 2745, giving the R1600 a 1.4% lead.

Q: How much more power does the A8-7670K consume compared to the R1600?

A: The A8-7670K has a TDP of 95 W, while the R1600 has a TDP of 25 W, meaning the A8 consumes 70 W more under its rated thermal design power.

Q: Does the R1600 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the R1600 supports ECC memory. The A8-7670K does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the cache configuration for each processor?

A: The R1600 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The A8-7670K has 256 KB of L1 total and 4 MB of L2 total, with no L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The A8-7670K includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The R1600 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Are these processors comparable in overall benchmark averages?

A: The R1600 has an average benchmark score of 958, while the A8-7670K averages 944, a difference of 1.5% in favor of the R1600.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 is the better performer in every measured benchmark, albeit by a slim margin. Its wins range from 1.4% to 1.9% across all five Cinebench tests, giving it a consistent, if not overwhelming, advantage. The average benchmark score confirms this, with the R1600 at 958 versus the A8-7670K's 944.

For new system designs, the choice is unambiguous. The R1600 is an active product with modern Zen architecture, 14 nm process, DDR4 support, ECC capability, and a 25 W TDP. The A8-7670K is end-of-life, based on the older Steamroller architecture, limited to DDR3, and consumes 95 W. The R1600 is the appropriate pick for embedded, mobile, or any power-sensitive workload where reliability and efficiency are priorities. Its lack of integrated graphics means a discrete GPU is required, but the performance and platform benefits outweigh that caveat.

The A8-7670K remains relevant only in specific scenarios. Its integrated Radeon R7 graphics and unlocked multiplier make it a plausible choice for a legacy desktop build or a low-cost system where adding a discrete GPU is undesirable. The 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes offer more expansion flexibility than the R1600's 8 lanes. However, for anyone choosing between these two today, the R1600 is the superior processor on every recorded metric, and its active production status makes it the only sensible option for new hardware. The A8-7670K belongs in the history books, not in a new build.