AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D across all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with no wins recorded for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164. The largest margin appears in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where the 9850X3D scores 435 against 71 for the P164, a delta of 512.7%. This indicates a substantial advantage in workloads that stress integer iteration and prime calculation routines.

The passmark_physics test shows a similarly lopsided result, with the 9850X3D scoring 4171 versus 1210 for the P164, a 244.7% advantage. Physics simulations often rely on sustained multi-threaded throughput, and the data reflects that pattern. The passmark_multithread score reinforces this interpretation: 41318 for the 9850X3D against 25889 for the P164, a 59.6% lead. These results indicate that the desktop part maintains a consistent edge when all cores are engaged.

The extended instructions workload shows a 62.3% delta, with the 9850X3D scoring 39272 and the P164 scoring 24193. This test typically measures SIMD and specialized instruction throughput, and the gap suggests the 9850X3D delivers higher sustained execution rates for such operations. Floating-point math results follow the same trend: 81998 for the 9850X3D versus 55799 for the P164, a 47% advantage. Integer math shows a 40% delta, with scores of 123140 and 87940 respectively.

Data compression and encryption workloads also favor the 9850X3D. The compression score of 474501 compares to 327891 for the P164, a 44.7% delta. Encryption results show 22856 against 16055, a 42.4% advantage. Random string sorting, a workload sensitive to memory latency and cache behavior, shows the 9850X3D at 49764 versus 34801 for the P164, a 43% lead.

The single-thread results narrow the gap considerably, though the 9850X3D still wins. The passmark_single_thread score for the 9850X3D is 4704, while the P164 records 4029, a 16.8% delta. This smaller margin suggests that per-core efficiency differences are less dramatic than the multi-threaded gaps, but the 9850X3D still holds a clear advantage in lightly threaded workloads.

Looking at broader positioning, the 9850X3D holds an average benchmark score of 58386, placing it at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M at 58323 (0.1% behind), the Intel Xeon w5-2545 at 58504 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i9-14900 at 58115 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 at 58826 (0.7% ahead). The P164, by contrast, averages 52901 and sits at the 91st percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F at 52873 (0.1% behind), the Intel Xeon 634 at 52974 (0.1% ahead), the AMD EPYC 7313P at 53206 (0.6% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53288 (0.7% ahead). The average score gap between the two processors is roughly 5485 points, which aligns with the consistent per-test deltas observed above.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 4 nm process node and TSMC foundry, but their underlying designs diverge significantly. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D uses the Zen 5 architecture with the Granite Ridge codename and belongs to the 9000 series. It is built for the desktop segment and fits AMD Socket AM5. The Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses a Zen 5 / Zen 5c hybrid configuration under the Gorgon Point codename, targets the mobile embedded market, and uses AMD Socket FP8.

Both parts feature 8 cores and 16 threads, and both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The critical difference appears in L3 cache: the 9850X3D offers 96 MB of shared L3 cache, while the P164 provides only 8 MB. This 88 MB difference is the most pronounced architectural distinction between the two and likely explains much of the performance gap in cache-sensitive workloads such as data compression and random string sorting.

The die sizes differ as well. The 9850X3D has a die size of 70.6 mm², while the P164 measures 233 mm². The 9850X3D lists 8,315 million transistors, while the P164 does not report a transistor count in the database. The larger die for the P164 likely reflects the integrated Radeon 880M graphics and the hybrid core arrangement, though the database does not provide a detailed breakdown.

Clock speeds favor the 9850X3D substantially. The base clock is 4.70 GHz for the 9850X3D versus 2.00 GHz for the P164, and the boost clock is 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. The 9850X3D also has a TDP of 120 watts, while the P164 is rated at 28 watts, reflecting its embedded mobile positioning. The 9850X3D has an unlocked multiplier, while the P164 does not.

Memory support shows both processors using dual-channel configurations with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 9850X3D supports DDR5, while the P164 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities differ: the 9850X3D provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes, while the P164 provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the 9850X3D includes Radeon Graphics, while the P164 includes the Radeon 880M.

The release dates place the 9850X3D at 2026-01-28 and the P164 at 2026-03-08. The 9850X3D has a launch MSRP of $499, while the P164 has no launch MSRP recorded. The 9850X3D uses part number 100-000001973, while the P164 lists its part number as unknown.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is the stronger processor in every measured workload. It wins all 11 head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 16.8% in single-thread tests to 512.7% in prime number finding. Its average benchmark score of 58386 places it at the 92nd percentile, while the P164 averages 52901 at the 91st percentile. The 9850X3D also carries a higher boost clock, a much larger L3 cache, more PCIe lanes, and a newer PCIe generation.

The Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is clearly designed for a different deployment context. Its 28-watt TDP, mobile socket, and hybrid Zen 5 / Zen 5c architecture indicate a focus on power-constrained embedded systems. The data shows it delivers respectable single-thread performance at 4029, but its multi-threaded scores trail significantly. For workloads that fit within its power envelope and use its LPDDR5X memory support, the P164 remains a functional option, but the recorded benchmarks do not show any workload category where it outperforms the 9850X3D.

The launch MSRP of $499 for the 9850X3D places it in the desktop enthusiast segment. The P164 has no recorded launch MSRP, which is consistent with embedded parts that typically ship to system integrators rather than retail channels. The 9850X3D is the appropriate choice for desktop users who prioritize raw performance, while the P164 suits embedded designs where the 28-watt power budget and mobile form factor are the primary constraints.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The 9850X3D has 96 MB of shared L3 cache, while the P164 has 8 MB of L3 cache.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The 9850X3D has a TDP of 120 watts, while the P164 has a TDP of 28 watts.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the 9850X3D and the P164 list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The 9850X3D supports DDR5, while the P164 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 9850X3D has an average benchmark score of 58386, compared to 52901 for the P164.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 7 9850X3D wins every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantages rather than by any reversal. The largest leads appear in prime number finding (512.7%), physics simulation (244.7%), and extended instructions (62.3%). These workloads benefit from the combination of a 5.60 GHz boost clock, 96 MB of L3 cache, and a 120-watt power budget that allows sustained high-frequency operation.

The smallest margin is in single-thread performance at 16.8%. This indicates that the P164's Zen 5 cores are competitive on a per-thread basis, and for embedded applications that run primarily single-threaded tasks, the P164 comes closer to matching the 9850X3D. However, even in that category, the 9850X3D remains ahead.

The P164's strengths are not visible in the benchmark data but rather in its physical and platform characteristics. Its 28-watt TDP makes it suitable for passively cooled or battery-powered embedded systems. Its support for LPDDR5X memory allows system designers to use lower-power memory in compact layouts. Its Gen 4 PCIe with 16 lanes is sufficient for many embedded peripherals. Its Socket FP8 form factor targets mobile-class designs where the 9850X3D's AM5 desktop platform would not fit.

For workloads that require maximum throughput, the 9850X3D is the clear choice. For embedded deployments that prioritize power efficiency, compact sockets, and LPDDR5X compatibility, the P164 provides a viable platform, but the data shows it sacrifices substantial performance in every measured category to achieve those characteristics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on the following recorded specifications:

• Base clock: 4.70 GHz for the 9850X3D versus 2.00 GHz for the P164
• Boost clock: 5.60 GHz for the 9850X3D versus 5.00 GHz for the P164
• TDP: 120 watts for the 9850X3D versus 28 watts for the P164
• Socket: AMD Socket AM5 for the 9850X3D versus AMD Socket FP8 for the P164
• Codename: Granite Ridge for the 9850X3D versus Gorgon Point for the P164
• Generation: Ryzen 7 (Zen 5, Granite Ridge) for the 9850X3D versus Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) for the P164
• Die size: 70.6 mm² for the 9850X3D versus 233 mm² for the P164
• Transistors: 8,315 million for the 9850X3D versus not reported for the P164
• L3 cache: 96 MB shared for the 9850X3D versus 8 MB for the P164
• Memory support: DDR5 for the 9850X3D versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the P164
• PCIe: Gen 5 with 24 lanes for the 9850X3D versus Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the P164
• Integrated graphics: Radeon Graphics for the 9850X3D versus Radeon 880M for the P164
• Market segment: Desktop for the 9850X3D versus Mobile for the P164
• Release date: 2026-01-28 for the 9850X3D versus 2026-03-08 for the P164
• Launch MSRP: $499 for the 9850X3D versus not recorded for the P164
• Multiplier unlocked: true for the 9850X3D versus false for the P164
• Part number: 100-000001973 for the 9850X3D versus unknown for the P164

Both processors share 8 cores, 16 threads, 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, dual-channel memory buses, 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, the 4 nm process node, and TSMC as the foundry.