AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the difference in process node between the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X?

A: Both processors are built on TSMC's 4 nm process node. The P164 uses the Gorgon Point codename with a die size of 233 mm², while the 9700X uses the Granite Ridge codename with a die size of 70.6 mm².

Q: How does the core configuration compare between the two chips?

A: Both processors have 8 cores and 16 threads. Each core in both parts includes 80 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache. The P164 has 8 MB of L3 cache, while the 9700X has 32 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The P164 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The 9700X operates at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X supports PCIe Gen 5, with 24 lanes (CPU only). The P164 is limited to PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) of each processor?

A: The P164 has a TDP of 28 watts, while the 9700X has a TDP of 65 watts.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X have an active production status.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X share the same underlying Zen 5 architecture foundation, but they are designed for different market segments and physical environments. The P164 is classified as a mobile part using the Gorgon Point codename, while the 9700X is a desktop part in the 9000 series using the Granite Ridge codename.

The most significant architectural divergence lies in the cache hierarchy. The P164 provides 8 MB of L3 cache, whereas the 9700X delivers 32 MB of shared L3 cache, a fourfold increase. This larger cache pool on the 9700X directly supports its higher sustained multi-threaded workloads, as more data can reside closer to the cores. Both parts allocate 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, so the difference is concentrated entirely at the last-level cache.

The physical package also differs substantially. The P164 uses AMD Socket FP8, a mobile-oriented socket, and has a die size of 233 mm². The 9700X uses AMD Socket AM5, a desktop socket, and has a die size of 70.6 mm². The transistor count for the 9700X is listed as 8,315 million, while the P164's transistor count is not recorded in the database. Despite the smaller die, the 9700X integrates a larger L3 cache, which suggests a different cache-to-logic ratio across the two designs.

Memory architecture shows both parts support dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The P164 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory types, while the 9700X supports DDR5 only. Both processors support ECC memory. The integrated graphics differ: the P164 uses the Radeon 880M, while the 9700X uses a generic Radeon Graphics solution.

PCIe connectivity is another distinguishing feature. The 9700X provides PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while the P164 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This makes the 9700X more suitable for high-bandwidth peripheral expansion, especially for NVMe storage or add-in accelerators that leverage Gen 5 signaling.

The P164 is part of the Ryzen AI Embedded generation combining Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores, whereas the 9700X is strictly Zen 5 (Granite Ridge). The P164's TDP of 28 watts is less than half of the 9700X's 65 watts, which reflects its mobile and embedded thermal envelope. The 9700X also features an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the P164 does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are not available in the database for these two specific processors. The P164 has a full set of PassMark benchmark scores, while the 9700X has no recorded benchmark results. Consequently, the analysis must rely on the P164's absolute scores and its percentile standing, along with the architectural differences that inform expected performance characteristics.

The P164 achieves an average benchmark score of 52,901 across all tests. This places it at the 91st percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the overall average score are the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F at 52,873 (a 0.1% delta), the Intel Xeon 634 at 52,974 (a 0.1% delta in favor of the Intel part), the AMD EPYC 7313P at 53,206 (a 0.6% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53,288 (a 0.7% delta). These deltas are all within a single percentage point, demonstrating that the P164's aggregate performance sits in a tightly competitive band.

Breaking down the P164's individual PassMark tests: it scores 327,891 in data compression, 16,055 in data encryption, 24,193 in extended instructions, 71 in find prime numbers, 55,799 in floating point math, 87,940 in integer math, 25,889 in multi-thread, 1,210 in physics, 34,801 in random string sorting, and 4,029 in single-thread. The multi-thread score of 25,889 and the single-thread score of 4,029 provide a snapshot of its balanced throughput.

The 9700X's lack of benchmark data means no direct wins can be assigned to either processor. However, the 9700X's higher base and boost clocks (3.80 GHz and 5.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz and 5.00 GHz) and quadruple L3 cache size suggest it would outperform the P164 in most compute-bound tasks, particularly those that scale with cache capacity and clock frequency. The P164's lower TDP and mobile orientation indicate it is optimized for power-constrained environments rather than raw peak performance.

The 9700X's 65-watt TDP and unlocked multiplier position it for sustained high-frequency operation, while the P164's 28-watt TDP limits sustained boost under heavy loads. The data shows the P164's average score places it among mainstream desktop and server parts, but the 9700X's architectural advantages are likely to widen the gap in favor of the 9700X in any measured comparison, even though such measurements are not currently recorded.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields. The P164 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz, while the 9700X has a base clock of 3.80 GHz. The boost clock is 5.00 GHz for the P164 and 5.50 GHz for the 9700X. The TDP is 28 watts for the P164 and 65 watts for the 9700X.

The socket types differ: the P164 uses AMD Socket FP8, and the 9700X uses AMD Socket AM5. The codenames are Gorgon Point for the P164 and Granite Ridge for the 9700X. The generation names reflect their positioning: the P164 is listed as Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c), and the 9700X is listed as Ryzen Embedded (Zen 5 (Granite Ridge)).

The die size is 233 mm² for the P164 versus 70.6 mm² for the 9700X. The transistor count is listed only for the 9700X at 8,315 million. L3 cache is 8 MB for the P164 and 32 MB (shared) for the 9700X. The 9700X supports DDR5 memory only, while the P164 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the P164 and Gen 5 with 24 lanes for the 9700X.

The integrated graphics are Radeon 880M for the P164 and generic Radeon Graphics for the 9700X. The market segment is Mobile for the P164 and Desktop for the 9700X. The multiplier is locked on the P164 and unlocked on the 9700X. The part number is unknown for the P164 and 100-000001404E for the 9700X.

The release dates differ: the P164 was released on 2026-03-08, and the 9700X was released on 2025-10-06. The percentile versus all CPUs is 91 for the P164 and 50 for the 9700X, though the 9700X's percentile is based on no recorded benchmark scores. The average benchmark score is 52,901 for the P164 and 0 for the 9700X.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9700X serve distinct purposes despite sharing core counts and thread counts. The P164 is engineered for mobile and embedded deployments where power efficiency is paramount, evidenced by its 28-watt TDP and support for LPDDR5X memory. Its 91st percentile standing among all CPUs and an average score of 52,901 show that it delivers competitive mainstream performance within a constrained thermal envelope.

The 9700X, with its 65-watt TDP, higher clocks, 32 MB of L3 cache, and PCIe Gen 5 support, is positioned for desktop workloads that demand maximum throughput and expandability. Its unlocked multiplier and larger cache make it the stronger candidate for compute-heavy applications, though no benchmark scores are recorded to quantify the advantage.

Benchmark results indicate that the P164's aggregate performance is virtually indistinguishable from the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F, Intel Xeon 634, AMD EPYC 7313P, and AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, all within a 0.7% delta. This places the P164 in a well-established performance tier. The 9700X's architectural specifications suggest it would exceed that tier, but without recorded scores, the exact magnitude remains unmeasured.

Users requiring a low-power, mobile-friendly processor with ECC support and a compact socket should consider the P164. Users prioritizing raw clock speed, cache capacity, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity for a desktop platform should consider the 9700X. The choice hinges on the thermal and physical constraints of the target system, as the data shows two capable but differently tuned implementations of the same core architecture.