AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core 5 223PQE Comparison

AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core 5 223PQE

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database currently lacks a direct head-to-head comparison set for these two processors, and the Intel Core 5 223PQE has no recorded benchmark scores available. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164, however, has a complete set of performance measurements that place it in the 91st percentile among all CPUs tracked, with an average benchmark score of 52,901. That figure puts it nearly level with the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F, which scores 52,873, a difference of only 0.1 percent, and slightly ahead of the Intel Xeon 634, which scores 52,974, a 0.1 percent deficit. The AMD part also edges out the AMD EPYC 7313P (53,206, 0.6 percent slower) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53,288, 0.7 percent slower), demonstrating that the P164 sits in a highly competitive performance band.

Looking at the recorded workload results for the P164, its strongest showing comes in PassMark data compression, where it achieves a score of 327,891. In data encryption it posts 16,055, while extended instructions reach 24,193. The find prime numbers test returns a score of 71, floating point math hits 55,799, and integer math scores 87,940. The multithread score is 25,889, physics processing records 1,210, random string sorting produces 34,801, and single-thread performance is measured at 4,029. These numbers indicate a processor that balances high throughput in parallel workloads with a solid single-thread showing, though the lack of any Intel Core 5 223PQE scores means no direct win-loss tally can be derived from the database. The data shows the P164 is a strong performer in its own right, but the absence of the Intel chip’s measurements leaves the head-to-head comparison incomplete.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their foundational designs. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses the Gorgon Point codename, built on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 233 mm². Its generation is listed as Ryzen AI Embedded, based on Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The Intel Core 5 223PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process, and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The manufacturing node difference is substantial, with AMD’s smaller process likely contributing to its efficiency characteristics, though the database does not provide direct power draw comparisons beyond the listed thermal design power.

Both chips feature 8 cores and 16 threads, so core and thread counts are identical. Cache configurations differ meaningfully. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of total L3 cache. The Intel part also has 80 KB of L1 per core but doubles the L2 to 2 MB per core, and its L3 cache is listed as 24 MB shared. That gives the Intel chip a clear advantage in total cache capacity, which can benefit workloads that repeatedly access large data sets. The AMD chip’s smaller L3 cache may still perform adequately for many tasks, but the Intel part’s larger pool is a structural advantage.

Memory support also differs. The AMD P164 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Intel Core 5 223PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, and both deliver a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, so raw bandwidth is identical. ECC memory support is present on both processors, which suits embedded and workstation environments where data integrity is critical. PCIe connectivity separates them further: the AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes, giving the Intel chip access to newer, faster interconnect technology.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD P164 includes a Radeon 880M iGPU, while the Intel Core 5 223PQE uses UHD Graphics 770. The database does not provide performance scores for either graphics solution, so any comparison must remain qualitative. The AMD part targets the mobile market segment, while the Intel chip is positioned as a desktop processor, which aligns with their socket choices: AMD Socket FP8 for the P164 and Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 5. Both chips are currently listed as active in production, and both were released on the same date according to the records.

Where Each One Wins

Without benchmark scores for the Intel Core 5 223PQE, the database cannot confirm any workload-specific wins for that part. What the recorded data does show is that the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 performs at a level comparable to several established desktop and server processors. Its average score of 52,901 places it just 0.1 percent above the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F and 0.1 percent below the Intel Xeon 634, with the EPYC 7313P and Ryzen 9 7900X trailing by 0.6 and 0.7 percent respectively. That positioning suggests the P164 is capable of handling demanding multithreaded workloads, as its multithread score of 25,889 indicates strong parallel processing potential.

The P164’s single-thread score of 4,029 is a solid figure for a mobile-oriented chip, and its data compression result of 327,891 stands out as particularly high, which could indicate strong performance in file compression, archiving, or data transfer tasks. The integer math score of 87,940 and floating point math score of 55,799 further support a general-purpose compute profile that would suit scientific calculations, financial modeling, or content creation. The Intel part, by contrast, has no recorded measurements, so the database offers no evidence of its strengths in any specific application. The Intel chip’s larger L3 cache and Gen 5 PCIe support are architectural features that could benefit cache-sensitive workloads and high-speed storage or GPU connectivity, but no benchmark data confirms these advantages in practice.

The Intel Core 5 223PQE does have a higher base clock of 4.00 GHz compared to the AMD’s 2.00 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. Those clock speed advantages could translate to better single-thread responsiveness in lightly threaded applications, but without measured scores, this remains speculative. The Intel part also carries a 125 W TDP versus the AMD’s 28 W TDP, which indicates the Intel chip draws substantially more power, likely requiring a more robust cooling solution and a larger power delivery setup. The AMD part’s lower power envelope makes it better suited to compact or thermally constrained systems, even if the Intel part may have raw performance headroom from its higher clocks.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is the only one of the two with measurable performance, and those measurements place it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 52,901 puts it in the company of the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F, Intel Xeon 634, AMD EPYC 7313P, and AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, all within less than one percent of each other. For users who prioritize a low-power, mobile-friendly processor with strong all-around compute performance, the P164 is clearly the better documented choice. Its 28 W TDP makes it suitable for systems where power efficiency matters, and its 4 nm process from TSMC indicates a modern manufacturing approach.

The Intel Core 5 223PQE, on the other hand, offers no benchmark data in the database, so any decision to choose it must rest on its architectural specifications alone. It provides a larger L3 cache, higher clock speeds, Gen 5 PCIe, and DDR4 compatibility, which could appeal to desktop builders who want flexibility in memory choice and access to faster interconnect standards. However, its 125 W TDP is more than four times higher than the AMD part, and its 10 nm process is older. The launch MSRP for the Intel chip is $319, which can be stated once as a reference point, but the database provides no comparable pricing for the AMD part.

For a builder who needs a proven performer in a power-sensitive form factor, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is the safer pick given the available measurements. For a desktop user who values cache capacity, clock speed, and modern PCIe, the Intel Core 5 223PQE may offer advantages, but the lack of recorded scores prevents any quantitative confirmation. The data favors the AMD part in terms of documented capability and efficiency, while the Intel part remains an unverified option on paper.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has an average benchmark score of 52,901, while the Intel Core 5 223PQE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It scores 0.1 percent higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F, 0.1 percent lower than the Intel Xeon 634, 0.6 percent higher than the AMD EPYC 7313P, and 0.7 percent higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for both processors?

A: Both the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and the Intel Core 5 223PQE have 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and the Intel Core 5 223PQE have ECC memory support.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has a TDP of 28 W, while the Intel Core 5 223PQE has a TDP of 125 W.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PQE has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 MB of total L3 cache.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 | Intel Core 5 223PQE |

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

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB | 24 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 880M | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Part Number | unknown | SA4QC |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $319 |