AMD PRO A8-9600 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between the AMD PRO A8-9600 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 is unusually close. Across all five recorded Cinebench tests, the PRO A8-9600 wins every single matchup, but the margins are consistently narrow. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the PRO A8-9600 scores 284 against the R1600's 280, a delta of 1.4%. This is the widest gap in the entire head-to-head set, yet it remains a slim margin.

The pattern holds in the newer Cinebench workloads. In R20 multi-core, the PRO A8-9600 posts 1184 points versus 1169 for the R1600, a 1.3% lead. The single-core R20 test shows a similar story: 167 for the PRO A8-9600, 165 for the R1600, a 1.2% difference. Moving to R23, the PRO A8-9600 scores 2820 in multi-core and 398 in single-core, while the R1600 scores 2784 and 393 respectively. Both R23 deltas sit at 1.3%. The database records five wins for the PRO A8-9600 and zero for the R1600, making the result unambiguous in direction but narrow in magnitude.

What does this mean in practical terms? A 1.3% lead in a synthetic renderer is effectively a tie under real-world conditions. The data suggests that neither processor is leaving the other behind in raw throughput. The PRO A8-9600's consistent edge, however small, does indicate that its architecture is slightly more efficient in these specific Cinebench workloads. The R1600, running at lower clocks and with fewer physical cores, manages to stay within striking distance, which is notable given its significantly lower power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data paints a one-sided picture in terms of raw benchmark scores, but the broader context from the database reveals where each processor has its place. The PRO A8-9600 wins every Cinebench test, including both multi-core and single-core variants. Its advantage is most pronounced in the R15 multi-core test at 1.4%, and it holds a 1.3% lead across R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The R20 single-core gap narrows to 1.2%. For workloads that scale with sustained CPU compute, the PRO A8-9600 has a slight but consistent edge.

The R1600, despite losing all five direct tests, cannot be dismissed. It ties the PRO A8-9600 in overall percentile ranking, with both sitting at the 26th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The average benchmark score for the PRO A8-9600 is 971, while the R1600 sits at 958, a difference of only 13 points. When placed against their nearest rivals, both processors land in similar terrain. The PRO A8-9600 is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-2400S and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U, while trailing the AMD A10-7870K and Intel Core i3-4130 by 0.4%. The R1600 is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Opteron 4386 and Intel Core i7-950, and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Athlon X4 870K and Intel Xeon W3550.

Where the R1600 actually wins is in efficiency and platform characteristics. It carries a TDP of 25 watts versus 65 watts for the PRO A8-9600, and it supports ECC memory, which the PRO A8-9600 does not. Its integrated graphics are absent, so it relies on a discrete GPU, but for compute tasks that do not need iGPU output, the lower power draw is a meaningful advantage. The PRO A8-9600, on the other hand, includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU, making it a more complete solution for a desktop system that needs basic display output without a separate card.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The PRO A8-9600 is built on the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, and fabricated on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The R1600 uses the Zen architecture, also codenamed Zen, with a 14 nm process from the same foundry, and contains 3,500 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die. The process node difference, 28 nm versus 14 nm, is the core reason the R1600 achieves a lower TDP despite being on a newer design.

Core counts differ as well. The PRO A8-9600 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading. The R1600 has 2 physical cores but 4 threads, relying on SMT to reach the same thread count. The R1600's base clock is 2.60 GHz with a boost of 3.10 GHz, while the PRO A8-9600 runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. Despite being a 2-core part, the R1600's Zen architecture is efficient enough to nearly match the 4-core Excavator chip in multi-threaded workloads.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The PRO A8-9600 has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache. The R1600 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 4 MB shared L3 cache. The R1600's L3 cache is a significant structural advantage, but the benchmark data shows it does not translate into a win. Memory support is identical: both use DDR4, dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The R1600 adds ECC memory support, a feature absent on the PRO A8-9600. Both have PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes. The sockets differ, with the PRO A8-9600 on Socket AM4 and the R1600 on Socket FP5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 scores 398, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 scores 393. The PRO A8-9600 leads by 1.3%.

Q: How much power does each processor consume?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has a TDP of 25 watts.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the R1600 supports ECC memory. The AMD PRO A8-9600 does not support ECC.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has 2 physical cores and 4 threads.

Q: Are there any Cinebench tests where the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins?

A: No, the database records five head-to-head Cinebench tests, and the AMD PRO A8-9600 wins all five. The R1600 has zero wins in this comparison.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 has an average benchmark score of 971, and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has an average score of 958. Both rank at the 26th percentile among all CPUs.

The Verdict

The data is clear on raw performance: the AMD PRO A8-9600 is the faster processor in every Cinebench test recorded. It wins all five head-to-head matchups, with margins ranging from 1.2% to 1.4%. For a user whose primary concern is maximizing multi-core and single-core Cinebench scores, the PRO A8-9600 is the correct choice. Its extra two physical cores give it a structural advantage that the R1600 cannot overcome, even with SMT and a newer architecture.

However, the R1600 is not without merit. It matches the PRO A8-9600 in percentile ranking (26th) and comes within 13 points of its average benchmark score. The R1600 does this with a 25 watt TDP, less than half of the PRO A8-9600's 65 watts. For an embedded or mobile platform, or any environment where power draw and heat are limiting factors, the R1600 is the better fit. Its ECC memory support also makes it more suitable for reliability-focused applications, such as small servers or networking appliances.

The PRO A8-9600's integrated Radeon R7 GPU is another deciding factor. If the platform needs display output without a discrete graphics card, the PRO A8-9600 is the only one of the two that provides it. The R1600 has no integrated graphics, so any system built around it requires a separate GPU. The choice boils down to what the system is for. For a desktop that needs both CPU and basic GPU capability, the PRO A8-9600 is the stronger pick. For a low-power embedded system where ECC support and efficiency are priorities, the R1600 is the more logical option, even with the slight performance deficit.

Specification Differences

| Feature | AMD PRO A8-9600 | AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Socket AM4 | Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Excavator | Zen |

| Codename | Bristol Ridge | Zen |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 3,500 million |

| Die Size | 250 mm² | 148 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 96 KB per core |

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

| L3 Cache | None | 4 MB shared |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon R7 | None |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2016-10-02 | 2020-02-24 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Part Number | AD960BAGM44AB | YE1600C4T2OFG |