AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core 5 130UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a complete benchmark profile for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164, but no recorded benchmark scores for the Intel Core 5 130UL. The Intel part has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rival data. Consequently, direct head-to-head comparisons cannot be drawn from measured results. The AMD processor’s recorded scores stand on their own and are compared against its nearest rivals instead.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 posts a Passmark single-thread score of 4029, a multithread score of 25889, and an average benchmark score of 52901. Its percentile rank among all CPUs is 91, meaning it outperforms 91 percent of all recorded processors. The nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F (average score 52873, delta 0.1 percent), the Intel Xeon 634 (average score 52974, delta -0.1 percent), the AMD EPYC 7313P (average score 53206, delta -0.6 percent), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (average score 53288, delta -0.7 percent). The P164 sits within less than one percent of all four rivals, indicating extremely tight competition at the top of the performance band.

Specific workload scores for the AMD part reveal its character. Integer math reaches 87940, floating point math reaches 55799, and extended instructions (SIMD) reach 24193. Data compression scores 327891, which is the single highest recorded value in its profile, while data encryption scores 16055. Random string sorting finishes at 34801, find prime numbers at 71, physics at 1210, and multithread at 25889. These numbers indicate a processor with strong arithmetic throughput and particularly high compression performance relative to its other measured tasks.

Because the Intel Core 5 130UL has no benchmark entries, the head-to-head section cannot report any wins or losses for either part. The database records zero wins for both processors. The only valid comparisons are between the AMD part and its named rivals, all of which are separated by fractional percentage points. The P164 trails the Ryzen 9 7900X by 0.7 percent and the EPYC 7313P by 0.6 percent, but leads the Ryzen 5 9500F by 0.1 percent. The gap to the Xeon 634 is a 0.1 percent deficit. These deltas are within measurement noise for most workloads, so the P164 should be viewed as performance-equivalent to all four rivals in aggregate scoring.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins in every category where a score exists, simply because the Intel Core 5 130UL has no recorded scores. The AMD part’s multithread score of 25889 and single-thread score of 4029 establish it as a capable performer in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded applications. Its data compression score of 327891 is particularly dominant, suggesting strong memory bandwidth utilization and efficient core scheduling for compressible workloads.

The Intel Core 5 130UL cannot be assigned any wins from the recorded data. Its benchmark array is empty, its average score is zero, and its percentile rank of 50 places it at the midpoint of all CPUs, but that percentile is not supported by any individual workload scores. Without measured results, any claim about its strengths would be speculation, which the database does not support.

For the AMD part, the integer math score of 87940 and floating point math score of 55799 indicate balanced ALU and FPU performance. Encryption at 16055 and extended instructions at 24193 show moderate SIMD capability. Physics at 1210 is a relatively low score, suggesting the processor is not optimized for rigid-body physics simulations compared to its arithmetic throughput. Random string sorting at 34801 indicates solid memory access patterns. The find prime numbers score of 71 is the weakest result, typical for a processor where branch-heavy integer loops are not the primary strength.

The nearest rival comparison shows the P164 is effectively tied with the Ryzen 5 9500F, Xeon 634, EPYC 7313P, and Ryzen 9 7900X. No rival leads by more than 0.7 percent, and the P164 leads one rival by 0.1 percent. For practical purposes, the P164 wins in workloads where its compression and integer performance are leveraged, while the rivals may edge ahead in other unmeasured tasks.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses the Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 233 mm². The Intel Core 5 130UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. These process differences are substantial: the AMD part uses a smaller node, which typically allows for higher density and lower power draw at equivalent performance.

Core counts differ. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Intel part has more physical cores but fewer threads, indicating it likely uses a hybrid configuration with performance and efficiency cores, though the database does not specify the core type breakdown. The AMD part’s symmetric thread count suggests uniform cores with simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. Both parts have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core on the AMD side, but the Intel part has 1.25 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache differs: AMD provides 8 MB total, while Intel provides 12 MB shared. The Intel part has 50 percent more L3 cache, which can benefit workloads with large working sets. The AMD part’s smaller L3 may be compensated by its higher memory bandwidth.

Memory support diverges. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, plus ECC memory support. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, but has no recorded memory bandwidth figure and does not support ECC memory. The AMD part’s support for LPDDR5X indicates an embedded or mobile-oriented design, while the Intel part’s DDR4 support targets legacy desktop compatibility.

PCIe lane counts differ. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part has twice the PCIe lane count, which matters for expansion options. Integrated graphics differ: AMD uses the Radeon 880M, while Intel uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. The database does not record graphics performance scores for either part.

Clock speeds and power differ. The AMD part has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a TDP of 28 watts. The Intel part has a base clock of 1.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a TDP of 15 watts. The Intel part uses less power but also has lower clock speeds. Sockets differ: AMD uses Socket FP8, Intel uses Socket 1700. The Intel part is classified as a desktop segment product, while the AMD part is classified as mobile. Release dates also differ: the AMD part launched in 2026-03-08, the Intel part in 2024-04-07.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164?

A: The average benchmark score is 52901, with a percentile rank of 91 among all CPUs.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 130UL have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database shows an empty benchmark array, an average score of zero, and no nearest rivals for the Intel Core 5 130UL.

Q: What is the closest rival to the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 9500F is the closest rival with an average score of 52873, a delta of 0.1 percent ahead of the P164.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with ECC memory. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 without ECC memory.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has a TDP of 28 watts. The Intel Core 5 130UL has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD part provides 16 Gen 4 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part provides 8 Gen 4 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 | Intel Core 5 130UL |

|---------------|---------------------------|---------------------|

| Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Base clock | 2.00 GHz | 1.60 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Process node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 1.25 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 8 MB | 12 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 4, 16 lanes | Gen 4, 8 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 880M | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-04-07 |

The Verdict

The data supports choosing the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 for any application where measured performance is required. It has a complete benchmark profile with strong scores, a 91st percentile rank, and average score of 52901, placing it within one percent of the Ryzen 9 7900X and EPYC 7313P. It offers 16 threads, a 5.00 GHz boost clock, ECC memory support, LPDDR5X compatibility, and 16 PCIe lanes. Its 28-watt TDP is higher than the Intel part, but it delivers substantially more measured throughput.

The Intel Core 5 130UL cannot be selected based on performance data because the database contains no benchmark results for it. Its specifications show a lower base and boost clock, fewer threads despite more cores, no ECC support, no recorded memory bandwidth, and only 8 PCIe lanes. It does have a larger L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB) and a lower TDP (15 watts vs 28 watts), which may matter for power-constrained desktop builds, but without measured scores, its actual performance is unknown.

For builders prioritizing verified performance, the AMD part is the only option with recorded data. For builders prioritizing low power consumption and a desktop socket with DDR4 compatibility, the Intel part has spec-level advantages, but the lack of benchmark data means any performance expectation is unverified. The AMD part’s 0.1 percent lead over the Ryzen 5 9500F and its 91st percentile rank make it a safe choice for any workload that relies on integer math, compression, or multithreaded execution. The Intel part’s 50th percentile rank, absent any supporting scores, should be treated as an unconfirmed estimate rather than a measured result.