AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X occupy very different positions in the performance spectrum, and the recorded benchmark data makes that split clear. The P164 is a mobile-oriented part with a substantial PassMark average score of 52,901, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database. It delivers strong single-thread performance with a score of 4,029, along with competitive multithread results at 25,889. The P164 also shows notable strength in data compression with a score of 327,891, and it handles integer math at 87,940, floating-point math at 55,799, and extended instructions at 24,193.

The Ryzen Embedded 9950X, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and its percentile ranking sits at 50. This does not mean the chip is weak; it means the database lacks measured results for it. The architecture specifications, however, suggest a part designed for heavy multithreaded workloads. With 16 cores and 32 threads, it has twice the core and thread count of the P164. Its base clock of 4.30 GHz and boost clock of 5.70 GHz are both higher than the P164's 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The 9950X also carries 64 MB of L3 cache, eight times the 8 MB found on the P164.

Where each one wins comes down to workload type and platform context. The P164 wins in efficiency-oriented and mobile-adjacent scenarios, given its 28 W TDP and its inclusion of LPDDR5X memory support. It also wins in portability of architecture, using the AMD Socket FP8, which is a mobile socket. The 9950X wins in raw throughput potential, with double the cores, double the threads, a much larger cache pool, and significantly higher clock speeds. It uses the AMD Socket AM5 desktop platform, which aligns with high-power desktop or workstation deployments.

The data indicates that the P164 is the only one of the two with actual measured performance results, so any comparison of wins must rely on architectural inference for the 9950X. In single-threaded tasks, the P164's 4,029 score is strong, but the 9950X's higher boost clock suggests it would likely take the lead in lightly threaded work if benchmarks were available. In heavily threaded workloads, the 9950X's 16 cores and 32 threads give it a structural advantage that the P164 cannot match, regardless of the P164's respectable multithread score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share several foundational traits but diverge sharply in scale and platform. Both are built on TSMC's 4 nm process node, and both use AMD's Zen 5 architecture family. The P164 comes from the Gorgon Point codename and is classified under the Ryzen AI Embedded generation with a mix of Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The 9950X comes from the Granite Ridge codename and belongs to the 9000 series, using Zen 5 cores exclusively. Both are active production parts from AMD.

The core configuration is the most obvious difference. The P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the 9950X has 16 cores and 32 threads. The P164's die size is 233 mm², whereas the 9950X uses a chiplet design with two dies, each measuring 70.6 mm², for a combined die area of approximately 141.2 mm². The 9950X also lists a transistor count of 16,630 million, a figure not provided for the P164. Both processors share identical per-core cache hierarchies: 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache, however, differs dramatically. The P164 has 8 MB of total L3 cache, while the 9950X has 64 MB.

Clock speeds also separate the two. The P164 runs at a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. The 9950X runs at a 4.30 GHz base and a 5.70 GHz boost. This gives the 9950X a 2.30 GHz higher base clock and a 0.70 GHz higher boost clock. Power envelopes reflect this disparity. The P164 has a 28 W TDP, while the 9950X has a 170 W TDP, a difference of 142 W.

Memory support is similar but not identical. Both support DDR5 and dual-channel memory, and both have a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The P164 adds LPDDR5X support, which the 9950X does not list. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs, with the P164 offering Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the 9950X offers Gen 5 with 28 lanes from the CPU. This gives the 9950X both a newer PCIe generation and more available lanes.

Integrated graphics also differ. The P164 uses the Radeon 880M, while the 9950X uses a more generic Radeon Graphics solution. The P164 is market-segmented as mobile and uses the AMD Socket FP8, while the 9950X is segmented as desktop and uses the AMD Socket AM5. The 9950X has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the P164 does not. The 9950X has a known part number, 100-000001277E, while the P164's part number is listed as unknown. The release dates also differ, with the 9950X released on 2025-10-06 and the P164 on 2026-03-08.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two processors. The head-to-head benchmark field is empty, and the win counts for both items are zero. The only measured scores belong to the P164, which has a full suite of PassMark results. The 9950X has no recorded benchmarks at all.

The P164's benchmark results provide a baseline for its capabilities. In PassMark single-thread testing, it scores 4,029. In multithread testing, it scores 25,889. Its data compression score is 327,891, which is its highest individual result. Data encryption scores 16,055, and extended instructions score 24,193. Prime number finding scores 71, floating-point math scores 55,799, integer math scores 87,940, physics scores 1,210, and random string sorting scores 34,801. The average benchmark score across all tests is 52,901.

For the 9950X, the absence of benchmark data means no direct numerical comparisons can be made. The architectural specifications, however, allow for informed inference. The 9950X's 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with a 4.30 GHz base clock and a 5.70 GHz boost clock, would likely produce a multithread score well above the P164's 25,889. The P164's single-thread score of 4,029 is strong, but the 9950X's higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz suggests it would likely post a higher single-thread score as well. The 9950X's 64 MB of L3 cache, compared to the P164's 8 MB, would also benefit cache-sensitive workloads.

The P164's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance. The AMD Ryzen 5 9500F has an average score of 52,873, which is 0.1 percent lower than the P164's 52,901. The Intel Xeon 634 has an average score of 52,974, which is 0.1 percent higher. The AMD EPYC 7313P has an average score of 53,206, which is 0.6 percent higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X has an average score of 53,288, which is 0.7 percent higher. These close margins show that the P164 sits in a tightly competitive performance band, within 1 percent of several established server and desktop parts.

The 9950X, with no benchmark data and no nearest rivals listed, cannot be placed in the same comparative framework. Its percentile ranking of 50 is a default value, not a measured result. The P164's percentile ranking of 91 reflects its measured performance against the broader CPU population.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two?

A: The P164 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The 9950X has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz.

Q: How does the cache configuration compare?

A: Both processors have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The P164 has 8 MB of L3 cache, while the 9950X has 64 MB of L3 cache.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: Both support DDR5 memory. The P164 additionally supports LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The P164 has a TDP of 28 W. The 9950X has a TDP of 170 W.

Q: Does the database contain benchmark results for both?

A: No. The P164 has a full set of PassMark benchmark scores, including a single-thread score of 4,029 and a multithread score of 25,889. The 9950X has no recorded benchmark entries in the database.

Q: What sockets do these processors use?

A: The P164 uses AMD Socket FP8, which is a mobile platform. The 9950X uses AMD Socket AM5, which is a desktop platform.

The Verdict

The data in the database supports a clear split between these two processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is a measured, verified performer in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with a full suite of PassMark results and an average benchmark score of 52,901. Its nearest rivals all fall within 0.7 percent of its average score, placing it in a tightly competitive band alongside the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F, Intel Xeon 634, AMD EPYC 7313P, and AMD Ryzen 9 7900X. The P164 is the appropriate choice for workloads that require strong single-thread performance, as shown by its 4,029 single-thread score, and for platforms constrained by power, given its 28 W TDP. Its support for LPDDR5X memory and its mobile socket make it suitable for compact or power-sensitive embedded designs.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X, by contrast, has no measured benchmark data in the database. Its architectural specifications, however, point to a processor built for a different class of work. With 16 cores, 32 threads, a 4.30 GHz base clock, a 5.70 GHz boost clock, 64 MB of L3 cache, and a 170 W TDP, it is structurally equipped for heavy multithreaded and cache-intensive workloads. Its Gen 5 PCIe with 28 lanes provides substantially more I/O bandwidth than the P164's Gen 4 with 16 lanes. Its unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for overclocking. The 9950X is the appropriate choice for those who prioritize raw throughput and platform expansion over power efficiency.

The recorded data confirms the P164's performance, while the 9950X's capabilities rest on its specifications rather than measured results. Buyers who require verified benchmark data and low power consumption should look to the P164. Buyers who need maximum core count, cache, and clock speed should consider the 9950X, with the understanding that its performance profile is not yet reflected in the database.