AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 are separated by more than just their release dates. The data shows two very different design philosophies: one is a modern, power-sipping embedded part built on a leading-edge node, while the other is a higher-core-count desktop processor from an older generation. Despite their architectural differences, benchmark results indicate they land in nearly the same performance tier, with the newer chip holding a narrow but consistent edge across every test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking aspect of the comparison is the uniformity of the results. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 takes the win, though by margins that are almost imperceptible in real-world use. In the multicore Cinebench R23 test, the V3C14 scores 10099 against the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600’s 10058, a delta of just 0.4%. That pattern repeats itself almost exactly in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the scores are 4241 and 4224, respectively, again a 0.4% difference. Even in the older Cinebench R15 multicore test, the gap remains tight: 1017 versus 1013, a 0.4% edge.

Single-core results tell a similar story. The V3C14 leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with 1425 points versus 1419, a 0.4% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the margin widens slightly to 0.5%, with scores of 598 and 595. The largest relative gap of the entire comparison appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the V3C14’s 143 points beat the 1600’s 142 by 0.7%. While these deltas are small, they are consistent — the V3C14 wins all six head-to-head matchups, posting a perfect 6-0 record.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce this narrative. The V3C14 carries an average score of 2921, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 sits at 2909. That places the V3C14 just 0.4% ahead, a figure that aligns with the individual test results. Both processors occupy the 51st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they land in the exact same position in the broader performance distribution. The nearestRivals data confirms this closeness: the V3C14’s closest competitor is the Intel Xeon E-2186M at 2912 (a 0.3% delta), while the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-1335UE at 2907 (a 0.1% delta). Notably, each of these two AMD processors appears in the other’s rival list, with deltas of 0.4% and -0.4% respectively, underscoring how tightly matched they are.

What the numbers do not show is any scenario where the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600’s extra two cores and four threads translate into a multicore advantage. Despite having 6 cores and 12 threads against the V3C14’s 4 cores and 8 threads, the older Zen architecture cannot overcome the efficiency and clock-speed gains of the newer part. The V3C14’s higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 3.60 GHz likely plays a role, but the benchmark data simply shows that the extra hardware in the 1600 does not produce a win.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has an average benchmark score of 2921, compared to 2909 for the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600. This represents a 0.4% advantage for the V3C14.

Q: How much faster is the V3C14 in single-core Cinebench R23?

A: The V3C14 scores 1425 points in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 scores 1419. That is a 0.4% difference, with the V3C14 taking the win.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 win any benchmark tests?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 loses all six Cinebench tests. The V3C14 wins every matchup, with deltas ranging from 0.4% to 0.7%.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two chips?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the V3C14’s score of 143 beats the 1600’s 142 by 0.7%. All other tests show a 0.4% or 0.5% difference.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The V3C14’s closest rival is the Intel Xeon E-2186M, which scores 2912 and is 0.3% behind. The Ryzen 5 PRO 1600’s closest rival is the Intel Core i5-1335UE, scoring 2907 and trailing by 0.1%. Both AMD parts also appear in each other’s rival lists.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 sit in the 51st percentile among all CPUs, indicating essentially identical overall positioning.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 in every benchmark test recorded. The margins are small — never exceeding 0.7% — but they are uniform across all six Cinebench workloads. For users prioritizing raw performance, even at the margins, the V3C14 is the better choice based on benchmark results alone.

However, the choice is not solely about performance. The Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 offers a 6-core, 12-thread configuration, which the data does not show providing any benefit in these tests, but which could be relevant in workloads not represented here. The V3C14, by contrast, achieves its win with fewer cores, suggesting better per-core efficiency. Its 15-watt TDP, compared to the 1600’s 65-watt TDP, makes it dramatically more power-efficient on paper, though the benchmark data does not include power consumption figures.

The Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 also offers an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking, while the V3C14 does not. For users who plan to overclock, the 1600 provides flexibility that the V3C14 lacks. The V3C14 counters with modern platform support, including DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 4, whereas the 1600 is limited to DDR4. The V3C14 is also the newer part, released in 2022 versus 2017 for the 1600, and it includes ECC memory support, which the 1600 does not.

Picking between them ultimately depends on whether the user values the V3C14’s newer features and efficiency or the 1600’s core count, overclocking headroom, and established AM4 platform. On pure benchmark performance, the V3C14 wins all six tests, making it the data-backed choice for performance seekers.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ substantially in their core and thread counts. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The V3C14 compensates with higher clock speeds: its base clock is 2.30 GHz and boost clock is 3.80 GHz, versus 3.20 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost for the 1600.

Power consumption presents a major divergence. The V3C14 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the 1600 is rated at 65 watts. The socket types also differ, with the V3C14 using AMD Socket FP7 and the 1600 using AMD Socket AM4. The V3C14 supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the 1600 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and no listed bandwidth figure. ECC memory is supported on the V3C14 but not on the 1600.

PCIe capabilities are only listed for the V3C14, which offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The 1600 has no PCIe data provided. The V3C14’s multiplier is locked, while the 1600’s is unlocked. The V3C14 has a part number of 100-000000557, and the 1600’s is YD160BBBM6IAE. Release dates are also far apart: the V3C14 launched in 2022, and the 1600 launched in 2017.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two chips is significant. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is built on Zen 3+ architecture, codenamed Rembrandt, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 uses the original Zen architecture, codenamed Summit Ridge. The V3C14 belongs to the Ryzen Embedded generation, and the 1600 is part of the Ryzen 5 generation.

The manufacturing process is a key differentiator. The V3C14 is fabricated on a 6 nm process by TSMC, whereas the 1600 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The 1600 has published transistor and die size figures — 4,800 million transistors and a 192 mm² die — while the V3C14 does not list these specifications.

Cache configurations also differ. The V3C14 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The 1600 offers 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, with a larger 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Despite the 1600’s larger L3 pool, the V3C14’s newer architecture delivers equal or better benchmark results.

Both processors lack integrated graphics, according to the data, and both target the desktop market segment. Both are listed as “Active” in production status. The V3C14’s architecture is described as “Zen 3+ (Rembrandt)” while the 1600’s is described as “Zen (Summit Ridge),” and the process node difference of 6 nm versus 14 nm is a clear indicator of the generational leap between them.