AMD Ryzen 5 7400F vs AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 occupy opposite ends of the processor spectrum. The 7400F is a desktop part built for mainstream performance, while the P174 is a mobile embedded chip designed for efficiency. The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the two, and the P174 has no recorded benchmark scores. This analysis relies on the recorded specifications and the 7400F’s measured results to outline the differences.

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What is the difference in their boost clocks?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F boosts to 4.70 GHz. The Ryzen AI Embedded P174 boosts higher, reaching 5.00 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F has a 65 W TDP. The Ryzen AI Embedded P174 has a 28 W TDP, which is less than half of the desktop part.

Q: What socket do these processors use?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F uses AMD Socket AM5. The Ryzen AI Embedded P174 uses AMD Socket FP8.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The Ryzen AI Embedded P174 includes Radeon 880M integrated graphics.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F is built on a 5 nm process. The Ryzen AI Embedded P174 is built on a 4 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use distinct core designs. The Ryzen 5 7400F belongs to the 7000 series, with the architecture listed as Zen 4 and the codename Raphael. Its generation is recorded as Ryzen 5 (Zen 4 (Raphael)). The Ryzen AI Embedded P174 carries the codename Gorgon Point, and its generation is listed as Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c). This indicates a mix of core types, whereas the 7400F uses a single core type.

The process node differs, with the 7400F on 5 nm and the P174 on 4 nm, both fabricated by TSMC. The 7400F has a die size of 71 mm² and contains 6,570 million transistors. The P174 has a larger die at 233 mm², though its transistor count is not recorded. Cache layouts are also different. The 7400F provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The P174 provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a smaller 16 MB of L3 cache.

Memory support shows a clear split. The 7400F supports DDR5 memory only, with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The P174 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, with a slightly higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the 7400F uses Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while the P174 uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The 7400F has an unlocked multiplier, while the P174 does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Since the database contains no recorded benchmark scores for the Ryzen AI Embedded P174 and no direct comparison results, the measured performance data only exists for the Ryzen 5 7400F. That chip’s results place it in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 32,750.

In Cinebench tests, the 7400F scores 2,193 in R15 multi-core and 309 in R15 single-core. In R20, it scores 9,141 multi-core and 1,290 single-core. In R23, the multi-core score is 21,765 and the single-core score is 3,072. These results show a strong multi-threaded capability relative to its single-thread output, a pattern typical for a 6-core, 12-thread desktop part.

PassMark results for the 7400F show a wide range of workloads. It scores 289,999 in data compression, 16,712 in data encryption, 21,747 in extended instructions, and 191 in find prime numbers. Floating point math scores 45,799, integer math scores 74,745, and multithread scores 25,645. Physics scores 1,660, random string sorting scores 35,096, and single-thread scores 3,689 (also recorded as 3,689 under a separate test name).

Without any P174 scores, the comparison is limited to architectural expectations. The P174’s higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz could aid single-thread performance, but its lower base clock of 2.00 GHz and smaller L3 cache suggest a different workload profile. The 7400F’s larger 32 MB L3 cache and higher base clock of 3.70 GHz indicate better sustained performance in desktop tasks. The P174’s 10 cores and 20 threads could provide more parallel throughput if the software scales well, but there is no recorded data to confirm this.

The Verdict

The data clearly points to the Ryzen 5 7400F as the processor for users who need measured performance. It has a full set of benchmark results, a high 83rd percentile ranking, and an average score of 32,750. The Ryzen AI Embedded P174 has no recorded benchmarks, a 50th percentile ranking, and an average score of 0, meaning the database has no performance evidence for it.

The 7400F is also the more straightforward desktop choice. It uses the AM5 socket, supports DDR5, has PCIe Gen 5, and includes an unlocked multiplier. Its 65 W TDP is higher, but acceptable for a desktop part. The P174 targets mobile and embedded systems, with a 28 W TDP, FP8 socket, and integrated Radeon 880M graphics. It also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is not available on the 7400F.

For pure performance based on recorded data, the 7400F is the only option with measurable results. The P174 offers more cores and a higher boost clock, but without benchmark data, those specifications cannot be translated into expected performance. The verdict is straightforward: choose the 7400F if you need verified multi-threaded and single-threaded scores; choose the P174 only if you require its specific embedded features, low power envelope, or integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The 7400F has 6 cores and 12 threads; the P174 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The 7400F has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The P174 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

The 7400F has a TDP of 65 W, while the P174 has a TDP of 28 W. The socket differs: AM5 for the 7400F, FP8 for the P174. The 7400F uses Zen 4 architecture with the Raphael codename; the P174 uses Zen 5 / Zen 5c architecture with the Gorgon Point codename. The process node is 5 nm for the 7400F and 4 nm for the P174.

Die size is 71 mm² for the 7400F and 233 mm² for the P174. The 7400F has 6,570 million transistors; the P174 has no recorded transistor count. L1 cache is 64 KB per core on the 7400F and 80 KB per core on the P174. L2 cache is 1 MB per core on both. L3 cache is 32 MB shared on the 7400F and 16 MB on the P174.

Memory support: the 7400F supports DDR5 only, while the P174 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 83.2 GB/s for the 7400F and 89.6 GB/s for the P174. Both are dual-channel and support ECC. PCIe is Gen 5 with 24 lanes for the 7400F, and Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the P174. The 7400F has no integrated graphics; the P174 has Radeon 880M. The 7400F has an unlocked multiplier; the P174 does not. The 7400F has a launch MSRP of $229, while the P174 has no recorded launch MSRP. The 7400F was released on 2025-01-08, and the P174 on 2026-02-28.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Ryzen 5 7400F wins in every measurable category because the P174 has no benchmark scores. The 7400F’s strengths are clear: it delivers high multi-core scores in Cinebench R23 (21,765) and R20 (9,141), and strong single-core results (3,072 in R23, 1,290 in R20). Its PassMark multithread score of 25,645 and integer math score of 74,745 indicate solid all-round desktop performance. The 83rd percentile ranking confirms its position above the majority of CPUs in the database.

The P174 wins in specification-based categories that do not require benchmark data. It has more cores (10 vs 6) and more threads (20 vs 12), which could benefit heavily parallel workloads if software scales. Its boost clock of 5.00 GHz is higher than the 7400F’s 4.70 GHz, potentially giving it an edge in short, single-thread bursts. Its 28 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient, suitable for fanless or thermally constrained designs. It includes Radeon 880M integrated graphics, allowing a system to run without a discrete GPU, which the 7400F cannot do. It also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is lower power and often used in mobile systems. The P174’s 4 nm process node is more advanced than the 7400F’s 5 nm node, which may improve power efficiency per transistor.

Use-case split: the 7400F is for desktop builds where performance has been verified and where a discrete GPU is expected. It offers higher base clocks, larger L3 cache, PCIe Gen 5, and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The P174 is for embedded and mobile systems where low power, integrated graphics, and compact platforms are priorities. Its 10 cores and 20 threads could suit server-style embedded workloads, but without benchmark data, that remains speculative. The recorded information supports the 7400F as the performance leader and the P174 as the efficiency and integration leader.