AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i vs Intel Core i7-14700F Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i and Intel Core i7-14700F occupy different corners of the processor market, one a low-power mobile embedded part and the other a high-core-count desktop CPU. The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between the two, but the Intel part has a substantial set of measured scores across Cinebench, Geekbench, and Passmark, while the AMD part has no recorded benchmark entries. Consequently, the analysis below relies on the Intel Core i7-14700F’s actual performance data, its percentile ranking, and the rival comparisons captured in the database, contrasted against the AMD part’s specifications and market positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i, meaning every measured performance figure comes from the Intel Core i7-14700F. The Intel processor posts a multicore Cinebench R23 score of 35122, a single-core Cinebench R23 score of 4958, a Geekbench multicore score of 19620, and a Geekbench single-core score of 2429. These numbers place the Intel part at the 91st percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 53620.

In the absence of AMD benchmark data, the nearest rivals listed for the Intel Core i7-14700F provide context. The Intel Xeon 6505P averages 53701, which is 0.2 percent ahead of the Core i7-14700F. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 averages 53469, trailing by 0.3 percent. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X averages 53288, which is 0.6 percent behind. The AMD EPYC 7313P averages 53206, sitting 0.8 percent lower. These deltas are small, indicating the Core i7-14700F sits in a tightly clustered performance band among these four rivals.

Looking at specific workload types from the Passmark suite, the Intel Core i7-14700F shows varied strengths. The integer math test returns 155808, while floating point math scores 107005. The extended instructions test scores 28564, and the data encryption test scores 30144. Data compression delivers 505885, random string sorting scores 55918, and the find prime numbers test returns 176. The multithread test scores 41317, physics scores 2455, and the single-thread test scores 4257.

The Cinebench R15 results for the Intel part show a multicore score of 3540 and a single-core score of 499. The R20 run produces a multicore score of 14751 and a single-core score of 2082. These results align with the R23 figures, confirming consistent scaling across Cinebench versions. The single-core scores are modest relative to the multicore scores, which is typical for a 20-core processor where the multicore advantage dominates.

The Intel Core i7-14700F’s performance profile is defined by its high core count and boost capability. The recorded data shows a 5.40 GHz boost clock, which contributes to the single-core scores. The multicore results reflect the 20 cores and 28 threads, a configuration that allows heavy parallel workloads to scale well. The 33 MB shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache provide the memory hierarchy needed to feed those cores.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i has no recorded benchmarks, so no direct wins can be attributed to it. The Intel part, by default, holds all measured performance advantages. The absence of AMD benchmark data means the comparison is one-sided, but the specification sheet for the AMD part suggests a different design goal, one focused on efficiency and integration rather than raw throughput.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core i7-14700F is the stronger performer in every measured category, but that conclusion comes with a caveat: the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i has zero benchmark entries in the database, so its actual performance is unrecorded. The Intel part delivers a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35122 and a Geekbench multicore score of 19620, placing it at the 91st percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, sit within 0.8 percent of its average score, showing that the Core i7-14700F is competitive with high-end desktop parts.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i, by contrast, is a mobile embedded processor with a 28 W TDP, 6 cores, 12 threads, and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. Its market segment is mobile, not desktop, and its socket is AMD Socket FP8, which is not compatible with the Intel Socket 1700 used by the Core i7-14700F. The AMD part uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel. These differences in process node and design philosophy suggest the AMD part prioritizes power efficiency and compact integration over peak performance.

For users selecting a desktop processor with heavy multithreaded workloads, the Intel Core i7-14700F is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its 20 cores, 28 threads, and 5.40 GHz boost clock deliver strong Cinebench and Passmark results. The 91st percentile ranking confirms that it outperforms the vast majority of CPUs in the database. The Intel part also supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, providing flexibility in platform choice.

For users targeting a low-power embedded or mobile application, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i offers a different set of attributes. Its 28 W TDP is a fraction of the Intel part’s 65 W TDP, and its integrated Radeon 840M graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in many embedded designs. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, along with ECC memory, making it suitable for reliability-focused applications. Its 4 nm process node suggests a modern, efficient design.

The data does not support a performance comparison between the two, because the AMD part lacks benchmark scores. What the data does show is that the Intel Core i7-14700F is a high-performing desktop processor with a well-documented performance profile, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i is a mobile embedded part with a focus on efficiency and integration. The choice between them depends on the application: desktop performance versus embedded efficiency.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core i7-14700F?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F has an average benchmark score of 53620, placing it at the 91st percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: The database lists no benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i, so its performance is not measured.

Q: How does the Intel Core i7-14700F compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Xeon 6505P averages 53701 and is 0.2 percent ahead, the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 averages 53469 and is 0.3 percent behind, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X averages 53288 and is 0.6 percent behind, and the AMD EPYC 7313P averages 53206 and is 0.8 percent behind.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i has a TDP of 28, while the Intel Core i7-14700F has a TDP of 65.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i includes a Radeon 840M, while the Intel Core i7-14700F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Intel Core i7-14700F supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core i7-14700F has 20 cores and 28 threads. The base clock on the AMD part is 2.00 GHz, slightly lower than the Intel part’s 2.10 GHz. The boost clock differs more significantly: the AMD part boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the Intel part boosts to 5.40 GHz.

The TDP values are far apart. The AMD processor draws 28 watts, a low-power design suited for mobile and embedded systems. The Intel processor draws 65 watts, a typical desktop figure. The sockets are incompatible: the AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700.

The process node also differs. The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The die size for the Intel part is 257 mm², while the AMD part has no recorded die size. The cache configurations diverge as well. Both parts have 80 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache on the AMD part is 1 MB per core versus 2 MB per core on the Intel part. The L3 cache is 4 MB on the AMD part, while the Intel part has 33 MB shared.

Memory support shows a split. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5, also with a dual-channel bus, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded. Both parts support ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ. The AMD part provides PCIe Gen 4 with 14 lanes, CPU only. The Intel part provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, CPU only. The integrated graphics are present on the AMD part as a Radeon 840M, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics.

The market segments are opposite. The AMD part is classified as mobile, while the Intel part is desktop. The release dates are also distinct: the AMD part was released on 2026-03-08, while the Intel part was released on 2024-01-07. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $359, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The Intel part has a part number of SRN3Z, while the AMD part’s part number is listed as unknown. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architecture of the two processors reflects their different design goals. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132i is based on the Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation, which uses a mix of Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The Intel Core i7-14700F is based on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, which is a Raptor Lake Refresh.

The AMD part is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, a modern node that enables higher transistor density and lower power consumption. The Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel, which is an older node in comparison. The die size for the Intel part is 257 mm², while the AMD part has no recorded die size.

The core counts and thread counts are the most significant architectural difference. The AMD part has 6 cores and 12 threads, which is a modest configuration for a low-power embedded processor. The Intel part has 20 cores and 28 threads, a high-core-count desktop design that excels in parallel workloads. The Intel part’s 33 MB shared L3 cache is substantially larger than the AMD part’s 4 MB L3 cache, which supports the Intel part’s ability to handle large working sets.

The memory controllers also differ. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5, also with a dual-channel bus, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded. Both support ECC memory, which is a reliability feature suited for embedded and server applications.

The integrated graphics are a key architectural difference. The AMD part includes a Radeon 840M, which provides display output and basic graphics acceleration without a discrete GPU. The Intel part has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A, meaning a separate GPU is required for any display output.

The PCIe support differs in both generation and lane count. The AMD part provides PCIe Gen 4 with 14 lanes, while the Intel part provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The Intel part’s PCIe Gen 5 support offers higher bandwidth for modern expansion cards, while the AMD part’s Gen 4 lanes are sufficient for embedded peripherals.

The production status for both parts is listed as active, meaning they are currently available. The release dates are far apart, with the AMD part launching in 2026 and the Intel part launching in 2024. The Intel part has a part number of SRN3Z and a launch MSRP of $359, while the AMD part has no part number or MSRP recorded.

The Boost clock difference is notable: 4.50 GHz for the AMD part versus 5.40 GHz for the Intel part. This higher boost clock on the Intel part contributes to its single-core performance, as seen in the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4958. The AMD part’s lower boost clock, combined with fewer cores, suggests a design focused on sustained efficiency rather than peak performance.

The Zen 5 and Zen 5c core mix on the AMD part indicates a heterogeneous design, where some cores prioritize performance and others prioritize efficiency. The Intel part uses a single core architecture across all 20 cores, with no recorded distinction between performance and efficiency cores. This architectural difference aligns with the AMD part’s mobile and embedded target, where power efficiency is critical.

The Intel part’s 10 nm process, while older, still enables a 65 W TDP with 20 cores, which is a balance of performance and power. The AMD part’s 4 nm process enables a 28 W TDP with 6 cores, emphasizing low power draw. The database records no benchmark scores for the AMD part, so the architectural advantages cannot be quantified in performance terms. The Intel part’s recorded scores provide the only measurable performance data, and they show a processor that ranks at the 91st percentile among all CPUs.