AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i vs Intel Core 3 N350 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i and the Intel Core 3 N350 target different ends of the mobile processor spectrum, and the recorded data reflects that split. The AMD part, built on a 4 nm TSMC process with a 28 W TDP, uses a hybrid Zen 5 / Zen 5c design with 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel part, an 8-core, 8-thread Twin Lake chip on Intel’s 10 nm node, operates at a 7 W TDP. The database contains no benchmark scores for the AMD processor, so its average score and percentile are zero. The Intel processor has a full set of measurements, an average score of 9903, and a percentile of 66, meaning it outperforms 66 percent of all CPUs in the database. The AMD chip’s lack of measured results prevents a direct numerical comparison, but the architectural records alone separate the two clearly.

The Verdict

The data shows two processors with distinct intended workloads. The Intel Core 3 N350 is the only one of the two with recorded performance data, and those measurements place it in the mid-range of the database. Its average score of 9903 puts it just ahead of the Intel Core i7-3770, which scores 9706, and the Intel Core i5-1035G1, which scores 9684. The N350 trails the AMD EPYC 7F52, which scores 10159, by 2.5 percent, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, which scores 10230, by 3.2 percent. This places the N350 in a competitive band with older desktop and mobile parts, which is notable for a chip with a 7 W TDP.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i has no benchmark entries in the database. Its average score is zero, and its percentile is 50, which is the median value assigned when no measurements exist. Without recorded scores, the database cannot confirm its performance position relative to the N350 or any other processor. The AMD chip does carry architectural advantages on paper, including a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 3.90 GHz, dual-channel memory support, a larger memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s, and PCIe Gen 4 connectivity versus Gen 3. These features indicate a higher-performance design, but the absence of measured data means the verdict must rest on the Intel part’s recorded results.

For users selecting strictly from the data, the Intel Core 3 N350 is the verified performer. Its percentile of 66 and average score of 9903 confirm it delivers solid multi-threaded and single-threaded results for its power class. The AMD part remains unmeasured, so no performance claim can be made from the database. The AMD chip’s specifications, particularly the 4.50 GHz boost clock, 12 threads, and dual-channel memory, suggest a more capable part, but the database does not support a performance verdict for it. The choice comes down to whether the user trusts the Intel part’s recorded results or the AMD part’s unverified specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i belongs to the Gorgon Point generation, which is described in the database as Ryzen AI Embedded with Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, meaning each core supports two threads. The Intel Core 3 N350 belongs to the Twin Lake architecture, which the database lists as part of the Core 3 generation based on Alder Lake-N. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning each core supports one thread. The AMD part’s 12 threads give it a logical thread count advantage despite having two fewer physical cores.

The process nodes differ significantly. The AMD chip is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel chip is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel. The AMD part’s smaller process node typically allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency, though the database does not include transistor counts or die sizes to confirm this. The AMD chip’s TDP is 28 W, while the Intel chip’s TDP is 7 W. This 21 W difference reflects the AMD part’s higher performance ceiling and the Intel part’s ultra-low-power design.

Cache structures also differ. The AMD chip has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of L3 cache. The Intel chip has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part’s larger L3 cache, 6 MB versus 4 MB, is shared across all eight cores, while the AMD part’s L3 is a single 4 MB pool. The AMD part’s per-core L2 allocation totals 6 MB across all six cores, while the Intel part’s shared L2 totals 2 MB across all eight cores. The AMD design provides more L2 bandwidth per core, while the Intel design offers a larger unified L3.

Memory support separates the two as well. The AMD chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory through a dual-channel interface, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel chip supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory through a single-channel interface, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The AMD part’s dual-channel configuration and higher bandwidth give it a clear advantage in memory-heavy workloads. The Intel part’s single-channel interface limits its memory throughput, which is typical for a 7 W design. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, while the Intel chip does not. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 14 CPU lanes, while the Intel part uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i and the Intel Core 3 N350. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and the wins counters show zero for both processors. This means the database cannot provide a direct score-by-score comparison. The AMD part has no benchmark entries at all, so there are no recorded scores to compare against the Intel part’s results. The analysis must therefore focus on the Intel part’s measured performance and the AMD part’s unverified specifications.

The Intel Core 3 N350’s recorded benchmarks provide a full picture of its performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 6274 in multi-core and 885 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 2635 in multi-core and 371 in single-core. In Cinebench R15, it scores 632 in multi-core and 89 in single-core. These results show a processor that handles multi-threaded workloads reasonably well for its 7 W power envelope, with the multi-core scores far exceeding the single-core scores in each Cinebench version.

PassMark results for the Intel part cover a range of workloads. The multi-thread score is 7382, and the single-thread score is 1974. The integer math score is 27669, and the floating point math score is 17781. The extended instructions score is 3981, and the data compression score is 80444. The data encryption score is 5693, and the find prime numbers score is 20. The random string sorting score is 10102, and the physics score is 446. These numbers indicate the N350 performs best in integer and floating point math, with weaker results in prime number finding and physics, which are often sensitive to single-thread performance and cache behavior.

The nearest rivals for the Intel part place it in context. The Intel Core i7-3770 scores 9706, which is 2 percent lower than the N350’s 9903, meaning the N350 is 2 percent faster than that older desktop processor. The Intel Core i5-1035G1 scores 9684, which is 2.3 percent lower, so the N350 is 2.3 percent faster. The AMD EPYC 7F52 scores 10159, which is 2.5 percent higher, so the N350 is 2.5 percent slower. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 scores 10230, which is 3.2 percent higher, so the N350 is 3.2 percent slower. These deltas show the N350 sits between older desktop parts and high-end server processors, which is a strong result for a 7 W mobile chip.

The AMD part’s lack of benchmarks means its wins counter remains at zero, and the Intel part’s wins counter is also zero because there are no head-to-head entries. This is a structural limitation of the database rather than a performance statement. The AMD chip’s specifications, including a 4.50 GHz boost clock and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, suggest it would outperform the N350 in many workloads, but the database contains no measurements to confirm this. The recorded data only supports statements about the Intel part’s performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The AMD part’s base clock is 2.00 GHz, and its boost clock is 4.50 GHz. The Intel part’s base clock is 0.10 GHz, and its boost clock is 3.90 GHz. The AMD part’s boost clock is 0.60 GHz higher, which contributes to its higher single-thread potential. The Intel part’s base clock of 0.10 GHz is exceptionally low, reflecting its 7 W TDP and power-saving design.

The TDP difference is the largest specification gap. The AMD chip operates at 28 W, while the Intel chip operates at 7 W. This 21 W difference means the AMD part draws significantly more power, which typically enables higher sustained performance but requires more cooling. The Intel part’s 7 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs, while the AMD part likely requires active cooling. The database does not include cooler recommendations, so this analysis stays within the recorded TDP values.

The sockets differ as well. The AMD chip uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 1264. These are not interchangeable, so the two processors require different motherboards. The AMD chip’s socket is designed for mobile embedded systems, and the Intel chip’s BGA socket is soldered directly to the board. The process node difference is 4 nm for the AMD part and 10 nm for the Intel part, with TSMC manufacturing the AMD chip and Intel manufacturing the Intel chip. The memory bus width also differs, with the AMD part using dual-channel and the Intel part using single-channel. The AMD part’s memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s is more than double the Intel part’s 38.4 GB/s.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD chip uses Radeon 840M, while the Intel chip uses UHD Graphics 770. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so no performance comparison is possible. The AMD chip supports ECC memory, while the Intel chip does not. The PCIe configuration differs, with the AMD part using Gen 4 with 14 lanes and the Intel part using Gen 3 with 9 lanes. The release dates differ by over a year, with the Intel part releasing on January 6, 2025, and the AMD part releasing on March 8, 2026. Both processors are listed as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i has 6 cores. However, the AMD chip has 12 threads, while the Intel chip has 8 threads, so the AMD part supports more concurrent threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i has a TDP of 28 W, and the Intel Core 3 N350 has a TDP of 7 W. The AMD part uses 21 W more power, which reflects its higher performance design.

Q: Does the AMD processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 N350 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the Intel Core 3 N350’s average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has an average benchmark score of 9903, with a percentile of 66. This means it performs better than 66 percent of all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i has no recorded benchmark scores, so its average score is zero.

Q: How does the Intel Core 3 N350 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The N350 scores 9903 on average. It is 2 percent faster than the Intel Core i7-3770, which scores 9706, and 2.3 percent faster than the Intel Core i5-1035G1, which scores 9684. It is 2.5 percent slower than the AMD EPYC 7F52, which scores 10159, and 3.2 percent slower than the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, which scores 10230.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel interface and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory with a single-channel interface and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.