AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall win for the AMD Ryzen 7 260, which takes 9 of the 11 recorded head-to-head tests. The Ryzen 7 260 leads in every multi-threaded workload, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 claims only the single-thread tests. The largest margin belongs to the Ryzen 7 260 in data encryption, where it scores 20267 against 16055, a 26.2% advantage. That gap reflects a substantial difference in cryptographic workload performance, one of the clearest separations in the entire comparison.

In integer math, the Ryzen 7 260 scores 96737 versus 87940 for the P164, a 10% lead. Random string sorting shows an even bigger divergence: 42383 versus 34801, a 21.8% edge for the Ryzen 7 260. Data compression also favors the Ryzen 7 260, with 351517 versus 327891, a 7.2% win. Extended instructions go to the Ryzen 7 260 at 26544 against 24193, a 9.7% margin. Floating point math shows 59462 versus 55799, a 6.6% advantage. Find prime numbers delivers 77 versus 71, an 8.5% lead. The multithread score, which aggregates overall parallel performance, lands at 28078 for the Ryzen 7 260 versus 25889 for the P164, an 8.5% difference. Even the physics test, the closest contest, goes to the Ryzen 7 260 at 1218 versus 1210, just 0.7% apart.

The P164's only wins come in the two identical single-thread tests, where it posts 4029 against the Ryzen 7 260's 3736, a 7.3% advantage. That single-thread lead is meaningful for lightly threaded tasks, but it does not offset the breadth of the Ryzen 7 260's multi-thread dominance. The overall average benchmark score confirms the Ryzen 7 260's position: 43717 versus 52901 for the P164. However, caution is warranted when comparing these averages directly, because the two CPUs have different benchmark suites recorded. The P164 has no Cinebench scores in the database, while the Ryzen 7 260 includes Cinebench R15 and R23 results, which skew the aggregate comparison.

Looking at percentile rankings, the P164 sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen 7 260 sits at the 88th percentile. The P164's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F at 52873 (0.1% slower), the Intel Xeon 634 at 52974 (0.1% faster), the AMD EPYC 7313P at 53206 (0.6% faster), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53288 (0.7% faster). The Ryzen 7 260's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 at 43704 (0.0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 170 at 43689 (0.1% slower), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 43431 (0.7% slower), and the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43326 (0.9% slower). These rival comparisons show that both CPUs sit near the top of their respective performance tiers, with the P164 grouping with high-end desktop and server parts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 4 nm process node from TSMC and the same AMD Socket FP8, but their internal designs diverge sharply. The Ryzen 7 260 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, while the P164 uses a Zen 5 / Zen 5c hybrid configuration under the Gorgon Point codename. Both have 8 cores and 16 threads, but the cache layouts differ. The Ryzen 7 260 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The P164 offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3 cache. That halving of L3 capacity for the P164 likely contributes to its lower multi-thread scores despite the newer Zen 5 core design.

Clock speeds favor the Ryzen 7 260 in base frequency: 3.80 GHz versus 2.00 GHz for the P164. The boost clocks are closer, with the Ryzen 7 260 reaching 5.10 GHz and the P164 reaching 5.00 GHz. The power envelope also differs substantially: the Ryzen 7 260 has a 45 W TDP, while the P164 operates at 28 W. That lower TDP explains the P164's reduced base clock, as it targets more power-constrained embedded applications.

Memory support shows another divergence. The Ryzen 7 260 supports DDR5 only, while the P164 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses with identical 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The P164 adds ECC memory support, which the Ryzen 7 260 lacks, a feature relevant for reliability-focused embedded deployments. PCIe lanes differ as well: the Ryzen 7 260 provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the P164 provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Ryzen 7 260 uses the Radeon 780M, while the P164 uses the Radeon 880M. The die size reflects their different layouts: the Ryzen 7 260 measures 178 mm², while the P164 measures 233 mm². The transistor count is recorded for the Ryzen 7 260 at 25,000 million, but no transistor count is listed for the P164. The release dates are also far apart, with the Ryzen 7 260 launching on January 5, 2025, and the P164 on March 8, 2026.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has a higher average benchmark score of 52901, compared to 43717 for the AMD Ryzen 7 260. The P164 also ranks higher at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, versus the 88th percentile for the Ryzen 7 260.

Q: Why does the Ryzen 7 260 win most head-to-head tests if its average score is lower?

A: The head-to-head tests cover only the PassMark suite, while the average score for the Ryzen 7 260 includes Cinebench R15 and R23 results that are absent from the P164's recorded benchmarks. In the directly comparable PassMark tests, the Ryzen 7 260 wins 9 of 11, including all multi-thread workloads.

Q: Does the newer Zen 5 architecture in the P164 give it a performance advantage?

A: The P164 does win the single-thread tests, scoring 4029 versus 3736 for the Ryzen 7 260, a 7.3% advantage. However, the Ryzen 7 260's higher base clock (3.80 GHz versus 2.00 GHz) and larger L3 cache (16 MB versus 8 MB) help it dominate in multi-thread workloads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 does not list ECC support in its specifications.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 has a 45 W TDP, while the P164 has a 28 W TDP. This lower power envelope for the P164 aligns with its embedded market positioning and its 2.00 GHz base clock.

Q: Are both processors compatible with the same socket?

A: Yes, both use AMD Socket FP8. However, they differ in PCIe lane counts: the Ryzen 7 260 provides 20 Gen 4 CPU lanes, while the P164 provides 16 Gen 4 CPU lanes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 260 | AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 |

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

| Base clock | 3.80 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 28 W |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 5 / Zen 5c |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Gorgon Point |

| Process node | 4 nm | 4 nm |

| Die size | 178 mm² | 233 mm² |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L3 cache | 16 MB shared | 8 MB |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 4, 16 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 780M | Radeon 880M |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-03-08 |

| Part number | 100-000001724 | Unknown |

| Average benchmark score | 43717 | 52901 |

| Percentile | 88 | 91 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins in all multi-threaded PassMark tests, including integer math, floating point math, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, random string sorting, and the aggregate multithread score. The largest margins appear in encryption (26.2%) and random string sorting (21.8%), which suggests the Ryzen 7 260 is better suited for workloads that involve data transformation, cryptographic operations, and parallel processing. Its higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and larger 16 MB L3 cache support sustained throughput in these tasks. The 45 W TDP indicates it can maintain higher sustained clocks under load, which benefits long-running multi-thread jobs.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins specifically in single-thread performance, with a 4029 score versus 3736 for the Ryzen 7 260, a 7.3% advantage. This reflects the newer Zen 5 core design, which delivers better instructions-per-clock efficiency. The P164 also holds advantages in power efficiency (28 W TDP versus 45 W), ECC memory support, and memory flexibility with both DDR5 and LPDDR5X support. Its larger die size of 233 mm² accommodates the hybrid Zen 5 / Zen 5c core layout and the Radeon 880M integrated graphics. For embedded deployments where single-thread responsiveness matters more than bulk parallel throughput, or where ECC reliability and lower power draw are priorities, the P164 is the stronger choice.

The Ryzen 7 260's 88th percentile ranking places it among capable mobile processors, while the P164's 91st percentile pushes it higher in the overall CPU distribution. The Ryzen 7 260's nearest rivals include the Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 and Ryzen 7 170 with nearly identical average scores, while the P164 groups with the Ryzen 5 9500F, Xeon 634, EPYC 7313P, and Ryzen 9 7900X. Those groupings indicate that the P164 competes in a higher absolute performance tier despite its lower TDP, but the directly comparable PassMark results show the Ryzen 7 260 winning the majority of shared tests.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload priority. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 is the better choice for users who need maximum multi-thread throughput in a mobile form factor. It wins 9 of 11 direct comparisons, with particularly strong results in encryption (26.2% ahead) and random string sorting (21.8% ahead). Its 45 W TDP and 3.80 GHz base clock enable sustained parallel performance, and its 16 MB L3 cache reduces memory stalls in data-heavy workloads. The Ryzen 7 260 also has a higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz and more CPU PCIe lanes (20 versus 16), making it suitable for systems that attach multiple high-bandwidth peripherals.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is the better choice for single-thread-bound applications and power-constrained embedded systems. Its 7.3% single-thread advantage over the Ryzen 7 260 comes from the newer Zen 5 / Zen 5c core design, which delivers higher per-core efficiency. The 28 W TDP makes it suitable for thermally limited enclosures, and ECC memory support provides data integrity for reliability-critical workloads. The dual DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory support adds flexibility for compact or low-power memory configurations. Its 91st percentile ranking shows strong absolute performance, but the direct head-to-head results confirm that it trails the Ryzen 7 260 in every recorded multi-thread test.

The average benchmark scores should not be read as a direct apples-to-apples comparison, since the Ryzen 7 260 includes Cinebench results that the P164 lacks. The PassMark suite provides the cleanest direct comparison, and it favors the Ryzen 7 260 in overall throughput. For a user prioritizing parallel compute, the Ryzen 7 260 is the verified winner. For a user prioritizing single-thread speed, low power, and ECC reliability, the P164 justifies its selection despite losing the multi-thread tests. Both processors remain active production parts, and the choice hinges entirely on whether the workload leans toward multi-thread volume or single-thread efficiency.