AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS vs AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually split picture between these two eight-core, sixteen-thread processors. In Cinebench R15, the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS dominates. Its multicore score of 2041 is 51.2% higher than the V2718's 1350, a substantial margin that reflects a significant performance gap in legacy rendering workloads. The single-core R15 result reinforces this trend: the 5900HS scores 236.5 versus 190 for the Embedded part, a 24.5% advantage.

However, the newer Cinebench R23 results invert the relationship entirely. The Ryzen Embedded V2718 posts a multicore score of 13396, which is 4.9% ahead of the 5900HS's 12745.5. The single-core R23 gap is even more pronounced: the V2718 scores 1891, beating the 5900HS's 1475.5 by 22%. This reversal is striking—the same two processors swap winners depending on the benchmark generation.

The overall win tally is even: two wins apiece. The 5900HS takes both R15 tests; the V2718 takes both R23 tests. Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the 5900HS sits at 3924, while the V2718 is at 3875—a difference of roughly 1.3% in favor of the mobile chip. Both processors occupy the 56th percentile among all CPUs in the database, placing them in the same performance tier despite their divergent individual results.

The nearest-rival data provides additional context. The 5900HS's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon E-2278GE with an average score of 3939, a mere 0.4% difference. The V2718 sits near the Intel Core i7-11700T (3864, 0.3% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 4600GE (3906, 0.8% delta). Notably, the two chips in this comparison are themselves listed as rivals: the 5900HS shows a 0.5% delta to the 4600GE, while the V2718 shows a 1.3% delta to the 5900HS.

Architecture Differences

The architectural foundation separates these two processors more clearly than their benchmark averages suggest. The Ryzen 9 5900HS uses the Zen 3 architecture with the Cezanne codename, while the Ryzen Embedded V2718 relies on the older Zen 2 architecture under the Renoir codename. Both are built on TSMC's 7 nm process, but the transistor counts differ: the 5900HS packs 10,700 million transistors on a 180 mm² die, whereas the V2718 contains 9,800 million transistors on a smaller 156 mm² die.

Cache configuration is another differentiator. Both chips share the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (512 KB) allocations, but the shared L3 cache diverges sharply: the 5900HS has 16 MB shared, exactly double the V2718's 8 MB. For workloads sensitive to shared cache capacity, this difference can be decisive.

The clock behavior also differs meaningfully. The 5900HS lists a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The V2718's base clock is 1700.00 MHz (1.70 GHz) with a boost of 4.15 GHz. This creates an unusual profile: the Embedded chip has a much lower floor but a competitive ceiling, which helps explain why its R23 scores exceed the 5900HS despite the architectural disadvantage.

Memory bandwidth further separates them. The 5900HS supports dual-channel DDR4 with a measured bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s; the V2718 also uses dual-channel DDR4 but tops out at 51.2 GB/s—about 25% lower. The V2718 compensates with ECC memory support, which the 5900HS lacks entirely. Both use PCIe Gen 3, though the V2718 specifies 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 5900HS simply lists Gen 3 without a lane count.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the 5900HS carries Radeon Vega 8, while the V2718 has Radeon Graphics with 448 SP. The 5900HS targets the mobile segment with a 35 W TDP; the V2718 is classified as a desktop part with a remarkably low 10 W TDP. Both use the AMD Socket FP6, are currently active in production, and have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The 5900HS wins decisively in older, established benchmark suites. Its Cinebench R15 multicore advantage of 51.2% suggests that legacy rendering pipelines and software optimized for earlier Cinebench versions will see substantially better throughput on the mobile chip. The single-core R15 margin of 24.5% reinforces this pattern for lightly threaded legacy workloads.

The V2718 wins in the modern Cinebench R23 workloads, both multicore and single-core. Its 4.9% multicore lead and 22% single-core lead indicate that newer rendering engines and current-generation productivity software may actually prefer the Embedded processor. The lower base clock appears not to hinder the V2718 when boost clocks engage—its 4.15 GHz boost is within striking distance of the 5900HS's 4.60 GHz, and the Zen 2 architecture in this configuration evidently sustains higher all-core throughput in R23.

For memory-sensitive applications, the 5900HS holds a theoretical edge with its 68.3 GB/s bandwidth versus 51.2 GB/s. However, the V2718's ECC support makes it the only option for environments requiring error-correcting memory. The V2718's 10 W TDP also makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled embedded systems, whereas the 5900HS's 35 W TDP demands more substantial thermal solutions.

Specification Differences

The two chips diverge across nearly every major specification category:

• Series: 5000 series (5900HS) versus 2000 series (V2718)
• Base clock: 3.00 GHz (5900HS) versus 1700.00 MHz (V2718)
• Boost clock: 4.60 GHz (5900HS) versus 4.15 GHz (V2718)
• TDP: 35 W (5900HS) versus 10 W (V2718)
• Architecture: Zen 3 (5900HS) versus Zen 2 (V2718)
• Codename: Cezanne (5900HS) versus Renoir (V2718)
• Transistors: 10,700 million (5900HS) versus 9,800 million (V2718)
• Die size: 180 mm² (5900HS) versus 156 mm² (V2718)
• L3 cache: 16 MB shared (5900HS) versus 8 MB shared (V2718)
• Memory bandwidth: 68.3 GB/s (5900HS) versus 51.2 GB/s (V2718)
• ECC memory: Not supported (5900HS) versus supported (V2718)
• Integrated graphics: Radeon Vega 8 (5900HS) versus Radeon Graphics 448SP (V2718)
• Market segment: Mobile (5900HS) versus Desktop (V2718)
• Release date: 2021-01-11 (5900HS) versus 2020-11-09 (V2718)
• Part number: 100-000000300 (5900HS) versus 100-000000242 (V2718)

Shared specifications include 8 cores, 16 threads, 7 nm process, TSMC foundry, 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, DDR4 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 3, AMD Socket FP6, active production status, and locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 boosts to 4.15 GHz—a 0.45 GHz advantage for the mobile chip.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 supports ECC memory, but the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS does not.

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 wins with a score of 13396, which is 4.9% ahead of the 5900HS's 12745.5.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the 5900HS?

A: The 5900HS has 16 MB shared L3 cache, exactly double the V2718's 8 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The 5900HS has a 35 W TDP, while the V2718 has a substantially lower 10 W TDP.

Q: Are both CPUs built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use TSMC's 7 nm process, though the 5900HS has 10,700 million transistors on 180 mm², while the V2718 has 9,800 million on 156 mm².

The Verdict

The data does not support a single universal winner. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS is the choice for legacy rendering workloads and applications built around older Cinebench versions—its R15 multicore and single-core leads of 51.2% and 24.5% are decisive. It also offers double the L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth, which may benefit cache-heavy and bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 wins in modern Cinebench R23 workloads, with a 4.9% multicore lead and a commanding 22% single-core advantage. Its 10 W TDP makes it the only viable option for power-constrained embedded deployments, and its ECC memory support is mandatory for reliability-critical systems. The fact that it achieves these results despite a much lower base clock (1700.00 MHz versus 3.00 GHz) suggests its boost behavior and sustained performance in current benchmarks are genuinely strong.

Given that both processors sit at the 56th percentile and their average scores differ by only 1.3%, the decision should rest on workload generation and platform requirements. Users running legacy software should pick the 5900HS. Users prioritizing modern rendering performance, ECC memory, or minimal power draw should pick the V2718. The two chips are near-equals overall but occupy opposite ends of the performance spectrum depending on the benchmark era.