AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core 5 210H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded PassMark data shows a decisive sweep for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 across all eleven head-to-head comparisons. The AMD part wins every single benchmark in the database, with margins ranging from a modest 13.8% in single-threaded work to a commanding 80.9% in extended instruction throughput.

The largest absolute gap appears in data compression, where the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 327891 against the Intel Core 5 210H's 217805, a 50.5% advantage. This indicates substantially faster handling of compressed data streams, a workload that often scales with cache capacity and memory bandwidth. The Intel part's 12 MB of shared L3 cache does not offset the AMD processor's architectural efficiency in this test.

Extended instructions deliver the most lopsided result of the comparison. The AMD processor scores 24193 versus 13370 for Intel, a 80.9% delta. This benchmark typically exercises AVX-class and other SIMD workloads, and the data confirms that the Zen 5 / Zen 5c hybrid configuration in the AMD chip is vastly more efficient at executing these instruction sets. For developers compiling code with heavy vectorization, this gap alone could justify choosing the AMD platform.

Integer math follows a similar pattern. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 posts 87940 against 61503 for the Intel Core 5 210H, a 43% lead. Random string sorting, another CPU-intensive operation, shows a 48.4% margin in favor of AMD, with scores of 34801 and 23451 respectively. These results collectively indicate that the AMD processor's eight cores and sixteen threads extract more work per clock cycle than Intel's eight cores and twelve threads.

The multithreaded PassMark score reinforces the core efficiency story. AMD leads 25889 to 18252, a 41.8% advantage. Since both processors have eight physical cores, the four extra threads on the AMD side (16 versus 12) only partially explain the gap. The remaining difference comes from the higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz on the AMD part versus 4.80 GHz on the Intel chip, combined with the architectural improvements in the Zen 5 cores.

Single-thread performance is the closest contest. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 4029, while the Intel Core 5 210H reaches 3539, a 13.8% lead for AMD. This is notable because Intel's Raptor Lake architecture has traditionally been competitive in lightly threaded workloads. The data here shows that the AMD processor's 2.00 GHz base clock and 5.00 GHz boost clock, despite the lower base frequency, still outpace Intel's 2.20 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost in single-core execution.

Data encryption shows a 31.7% advantage for AMD, with scores of 16055 versus 12187. Prime number finding, a test that stresses integer branching and loop prediction, favors AMD by 34% (71 versus 53). Floating point math gives AMD a 23.8% edge, at 55799 versus 45057. Physics calculations, which often rely on both integer and floating point throughput, show a 16.3% margin for AMD, at 1210 versus 1040.

The average benchmark score tells a broader story. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 sits at 52901 in the database, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs tested. The Intel Core 5 210H averages 24872, which lands in the 77th percentile. The nearest rivals for AMD include the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F at 52873 (0.1% behind), the Intel Xeon 634 at 52974 (0.1% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 7313P at 53206 (0.6% ahead). For Intel, the closest competitors are the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24911 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX at 24822 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-11850H at 24935 (0.3% behind). These rival clusters confirm that the two processors occupy entirely different performance tiers despite sharing the same core count.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous outcome. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 outperforms the Intel Core 5 210H in every recorded test, with no benchmark going Intel's way. The AMD processor's 91st percentile ranking versus Intel's 77th percentile ranking places them in different performance classes, even though both are mobile processors with eight physical cores.

The AMD processor is the choice for workloads that benefit from high multithreaded throughput, extended instruction set execution, and data compression or encryption tasks. Its 16 threads, 5.00 GHz boost clock, and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth give it clear advantages in content creation, scientific computing, and server-side data processing. The 8 MB of L3 cache, while smaller than Intel's 12 MB, does not appear to hinder performance in the recorded benchmarks.

The Intel Core 5 210H, with its 45 W TDP versus AMD's 28 W TDP, consumes more power on paper yet delivers lower scores across the board. The Intel part's 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache do not translate into benchmark wins. Its Raptor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process, trails the TSMC 4 nm node used by AMD in both efficiency and raw performance.

For users who prioritize single-thread responsiveness, the AMD part still leads by 13.8%, so there is no workload category in this database where Intel takes the edge. The launch MSRP for the Intel Core 5 210H is $342, but the benchmark data does not include pricing information for the AMD processor, so no direct comparison can be made from these records.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multithreaded PassMark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 25889, while the Intel Core 5 210H scores 18252. AMD leads by 41.8%.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 4029 in the PassMark single-thread test, and the Intel Core 5 210H scores 3539. AMD holds a 13.8% advantage.

Q: Are both processors built on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core 5 210H uses Intel's 10 nm process.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory types?

A: No. The AMD processor supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Intel processor supports DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but only the AMD part supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the core and thread count for each processor?

A: Both have 8 physical cores. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 supports 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 210H supports 12 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 210H boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Intel part has a higher base clock at 2.20 GHz versus 2.00 GHz for AMD.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specifications. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel Core 5 210H uses Intel BGA 1744. The AMD processor runs at a 28 W TDP, compared to 45 W for the Intel part, meaning the Intel chip has a higher thermal design power despite lower benchmark scores.

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The Intel Core 5 210H has a higher base clock at 2.20 GHz versus 2.00 GHz for AMD, but the AMD processor boosts higher at 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz for Intel. Thread counts also differ: AMD provides 16 threads from its 8 cores, while Intel provides 12 threads from its 8 cores.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. Both allocate 80 KB of L1 cache per core, but the AMD processor uses 1 MB of L2 per core while Intel uses 2 MB per core. The L3 cache totals 8 MB on AMD and 12 MB shared on Intel, giving Intel a nominal capacity advantage that does not translate to benchmark wins.

Memory support shows clear separation. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel operation and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory support. The Intel Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel operation, but the database does not record a bandwidth figure, and ECC is not supported.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The AMD processor offers Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Intel processor offers Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. Intel's newer PCIe generation provides higher per-lane bandwidth, but AMD provides double the lane count.

Integrated graphics also separate the two. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses a Radeon 880M, while the Intel Core 5 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The database does not include graphics benchmarks for either part, so the comparison rests on the CPU-focused PassMark tests.

Release dates differ by over a year. The AMD processor was released on 2026-03-08, while the Intel processor launched on 2024-12-17. The Intel part carries the part number SRQ6RQ5MN, while the AMD part's part number is listed as unknown.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 belongs to the Gorgon Point codename family, with a generation label of Ryzen AI Embedded based on Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The Intel Core 5 210H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, and belongs to the Core 5 generation under the Raptor Lake Refresh umbrella.

Manufacturing processes differ substantially. The AMD processor is fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC, while the Intel processor uses Intel's 10 nm process. The AMD die size is recorded at 233 mm², while no die size is listed for the Intel part. The smaller process node typically enables higher transistor density and better power efficiency, which aligns with the AMD processor's lower 28 W TDP and higher performance scores.

The core architectures represent different design philosophies. Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores in the AMD processor focus on high instructions-per-clock and efficient multithreading, as evidenced by the 16 threads and strong multithreaded scores. Raptor Lake cores in the Intel processor use a hybrid performance and efficiency core arrangement, though the database does not specify the exact core mix for the Core 5 210H.

Cache architecture reveals different strategies. The AMD processor uses 1 MB of L2 per core and an 8 MB shared L3, while the Intel processor uses 2 MB of L2 per core and a 12 MB shared L3. Intel's larger caches do not overcome AMD's architectural efficiency in the recorded benchmarks, suggesting that the AMD design extracts more useful work from each cache byte.

Feature support also diverges. The AMD processor includes ECC memory support, which is absent on the Intel part, making AMD more suitable for error-sensitive workloads. The AMD processor's PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes provides more total connectivity, while Intel's PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes offers higher per-lane speed. The AMD processor's Radeon 880M integrated graphics and the Intel processor's Iris Xe Graphics 48EU represent different GPU architectures, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in this database.

The production status for both processors is listed as Active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD processor's 2026 release date makes it a newer design, while the Intel processor's late 2024 launch predates it by roughly a year. The architectural differences between a 4 nm TSMC design with Zen 5 cores and a 10 nm Intel design with Raptor Lake cores explain the consistent performance advantages observed across all benchmark categories.