AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core 7 240H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall victory for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164, which wins 8 of the 11 head-to-head tests against the Intel Core 7 240H. The most decisive AMD advantage appears in extended instructions, where the P164 scores 24193 against Intel's 16897, a 43.2% margin. This indicates a substantial lead in workloads that leverage advanced SIMD and cryptographic instruction sets, likely reflecting the Zen 5 architecture's wider execution resources.

The AMD processor also demonstrates a strong advantage in data compression and random string sorting, both showing a 20.6% delta. The P164 records 327891 in data compression versus 271774 for the Intel part, and 34801 in random string sorting versus 28866. These results suggest superior memory subsystem efficiency and branch handling for pointer-chasing workloads, despite the Intel part having a larger L3 cache.

Integer math performance favors AMD as well, with the P164 scoring 87940 compared to 80396 for the Core 7 240H, a 9.4% lead. The multithread test also goes to AMD, with a score of 25889 versus 23975, an 8% advantage. This outcome is notable because the Intel processor has 10 cores to AMD's 8, though both parts present 16 threads to the operating system. The AMD part's per-core throughput in integer workloads compensates for its lower core count.

Single-thread performance is another AMD win, with scores of 4029 versus 3782, a 6.5% delta. This is consistent with the higher boost clock of the AMD part (5.00 GHz versus 5.20 GHz) not fully determining outcome; architectural IPC differences appear to be the deciding factor. The encryption test also favors AMD, showing 16055 against 15155, a 5.9% margin.

The Intel Core 7 240H does secure three wins, and two of them are substantial. The largest Intel victory is in the find prime numbers test, where it scores 102 against AMD's 71, a 30.4% advantage. This specific workload often responds well to higher sustained clocks and simpler integer pipelines, and the Intel part's 2.50 GHz base clock versus 2.00 GHz for AMD likely contributes. The physics test also goes strongly to Intel, with 1723 versus 1210, a 29.8% lead. This test typically stresses branch prediction and latency-sensitive single-threaded floating-point sequences, areas where Raptor Lake's mature design remains competitive.

The final Intel win is narrower: floating point math shows 58905 for Intel versus 55799 for AMD, a 5.3% delta. This is a smaller margin than the other Intel victories, indicating that AMD's FPU is competitive but not dominant in pure throughput. Overall, the benchmark data indicates that AMD wins the majority of tests with larger average deltas, while Intel's wins are concentrated in specific latency-sensitive workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 records a single-thread score of 4029, which is 6.5% higher than the Intel Core 7 240H's score of 3782.

Q: How does the multithread performance compare between the two?

A: The AMD P164 scores 25889 in the multithread test, which is 8% higher than the Intel Core 7 240H's 23975. This result occurs despite the Intel part having 10 cores versus 8 for AMD; both parts have 16 threads.

Q: What is the largest benchmark delta between the two processors?

A: The largest delta is in the extended instructions test, where the AMD P164 scores 24193 against Intel's 16897, giving AMD a 43.2% advantage.

Q: In which test does the Intel Core 7 240H have its biggest win?

A: Intel's biggest win is in the find prime numbers test, where it scores 102 versus AMD's 71, a 30.4% advantage for Intel.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each part?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has an average benchmark score of 52901, while the Intel Core 7 240H has an average of 31483. The AMD part sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while Intel is at the 82nd percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in data compression?

A: AMD is significantly ahead, scoring 327891 in the data compression test versus 271774 for Intel, a 20.6% delta in favor of AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses the Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation based on Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 233 mm². The Intel Core 7 240H, in contrast, uses the Raptor Lake-H codename and belongs to the Core 7 generation based on the Raptor Lake Refresh architecture. It uses a 10 nm process at Intel, with no die size recorded.

Cache organization differs substantially. Both parts have 80 KB of L1 cache per core. However, AMD provides 1 MB of L2 cache per core, while Intel provides 2 MB per core. The L3 cache also diverges: AMD has 8 MB total, while Intel has 24 MB shared. This gives Intel a threefold advantage in the last-level cache, which may explain its competitive showing in latency-sensitive tests like physics and prime number finding.

The integrated graphics solutions are different as well. AMD uses the Radeon 880M, while Intel uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. Memory support also differentiates the parts: AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5. AMD specifies a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while Intel does not have a recorded bandwidth figure in the database. AMD also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Intel part.

PCIe connectivity shows a generational split. AMD provides PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). This means AMD offers more lanes at a slower speed, while Intel offers fewer lanes at a faster speed. The choice between them depends on whether the workload needs more devices or higher per-device bandwidth.

The process node difference is notable: 4 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. This contributes to the power envelope difference, where AMD has a TDP of 28 watts versus Intel's 45 watts. The smaller process node likely explains how AMD achieves competitive or superior performance in many tests while maintaining a lower thermal design power.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several clear differences between the two processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. Both parts present the same thread count, but Intel has two additional physical cores.

Clock speeds differ: AMD has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Intel has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Intel holds the advantage in both base and boost frequencies, yet AMD still wins the majority of benchmarks, indicating higher instructions per clock.

The TDP is 28 watts for AMD versus 45 watts for Intel. This is a significant difference in power envelope, placing AMD in a lower-power class while Intel requires more thermal headroom.

Sockets are incompatible: AMD uses AMD Socket FP8, while Intel uses Intel BGA 1744. The production status for both is Active. AMD has a release date of 2026-03-08, while Intel has a release date of 2024-12-17. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $502, while AMD has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Intel part has a recorded part number of SRQ6TQ5ML, while AMD's part number is listed as unknown. Both processors have locked multipliers, indicating they are not intended for overclocking.

ECC memory support differs, with AMD offering ECC and Intel not offering it. Memory bus is dual-channel for both. The PCIe generation and lane count differ as described above. The integrated graphics models are different, as are the memory type support lists.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is the preferred processor for workloads that benefit from high instruction-level parallelism and advanced instruction set extensions. The 43.2% lead in extended instructions makes it the clear choice for applications using AVX-512 or similar vectorized code paths, such as scientific computing, signal processing, and certain encryption algorithms. The 9.4% lead in integer math and 8% lead in multithread also position it well for general productivity suites, compilation tasks, and database workloads that are integer-heavy. The 20.6% wins in both data compression and random string sorting make it suitable for archiving tools, data serialization, and in-memory data processing where memory access patterns are irregular.

The AMD part's lower TDP of 28 watts versus Intel's 45 watts also makes it attractive for thermally constrained mobile platforms, though the database does not include battery life or sustained performance data. The ECC memory support is a differentiator for reliability-critical embedded applications, where a single bit error is unacceptable. The 91st percentile ranking versus Intel's 82nd percentile confirms that the AMD part sits higher in the overall CPU performance distribution.

The Intel Core 7 240H wins in specific latency-sensitive and clock-dependent workloads. The 30.4% advantage in find prime numbers and 29.8% advantage in physics indicate that workloads with tight loops and minimal data dependencies respond well to Intel's higher base clock of 2.50 GHz and larger 24 MB L3 cache. These results suggest Intel is better suited for real-time physics simulations in engineering tools, certain integer sieving algorithms, and interactive workloads where response time is critical. The 5.3% lead in floating point math is a narrower victory, but it still indicates that pure FP throughput is an Intel strength.

The Intel part's 10 physical cores and 2 MB L2 per core may benefit workloads that rely on core-count-aware scheduling, even though the thread count is identical. The PCIe Gen 5 support with 8 lanes provides a faster point-to-point connection for a single high-bandwidth device, such as a discrete GPU or NVMe storage, compared to AMD's Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The DDR4 memory support also provides a lower-cost platform option for existing memory inventories.

For a system builder choosing between the two, the data indicates the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 delivers superior average performance, higher percentile ranking, and lower power draw, making it the default choice for most compute-bound applications. The Intel Core 7 240H remains competitive in scenarios where its specific benchmark wins align with the target workload, particularly physics and prime number computation, and where its larger L3 cache and higher clocks provide a tangible benefit. The 2024 release date and existing part number for Intel suggest broader availability, while the 2026 release date for AMD indicates a newer platform.