AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core 7 251E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 delivers a complete sweep of recorded benchmark victories over the Intel Core 7 251E, although the comparison is constrained by data availability. The Intel part currently has no recorded PassMark results in the database, leaving its performance profile entirely unmeasured. Consequently, the AMD processor's absolute scores stand as the only quantitative benchmark data in this matchup.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 posts an average benchmark score of 52901, which places it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs tracked by the database. The Intel Core 7 251E, by contrast, carries an average benchmark score of 0 and sits in the 50th percentile, reflecting the absence of any recorded test results rather than an indication of actual performance. This asymmetry makes a conventional head-to-head numeric comparison impossible, but the AMD part's individual test scores still offer a detailed picture of its capabilities.

In single-threaded performance, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 records a PassMark single-thread score of 4029. Its multithread score reaches 25889, which indicates strong scaling from its 8 cores and 16 threads. The processor achieves 87940 in integer math, 55799 in floating-point math, and 24193 in extended instructions, showing balanced arithmetic throughput across different workload types. Data compression yields 327891, while data encryption reaches 16055. Random string sorting produces 34801, and the physics test returns 1210. Find prime numbers completes with a score of 71.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the AMD part's average score of 52901 puts it within a narrow band of comparable processors. The AMD Ryzen 5 9500F averages 52873, a delta of 0.1 percent, making it effectively a statistical tie. The Intel Xeon 634 averages 52974, which is 0.1 percent higher than the P164. The AMD EPYC 7313P averages 53206, a 0.6 percent advantage, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X averages 53288, 0.7 percent ahead. These margins are all under one percent, indicating that the P164 performs in line with a cluster of well-established desktop and server parts despite its embedded mobile positioning.

The Intel Core 7 251E has no benchmark scores in the database, so no direct percentage deltas can be computed against the AMD part. The Intel processor's 24 cores and 32 threads suggest a theoretical advantage in heavily parallel workloads, but without recorded measurements, the database cannot confirm how that core count translates into actual test results. The AMD processor's recorded scores, however, demonstrate that its 8-core, 16-thread configuration delivers competitive absolute performance against the rival processors that do have data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins every category where measurement data exists, simply because the Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded scores. Within the AMD part's own results, the strongest relative showings appear in data compression and integer math, where the scores of 327891 and 87940 respectively reflect throughput-oriented design priorities. The floating-point score of 55799 and extended instructions score of 24193 indicate solid numerical processing capability, useful for scientific and engineering workloads.

The data compression result of 327891 stands out as the single highest raw score in the AMD part's benchmark suite, suggesting particular strength in compression and archive workloads. Integer math at 87940 and random string sorting at 34801 point to capable general-purpose computation. The multithread score of 25889, combined with a single-thread score of 4029, shows that the processor handles both lightly threaded and heavily threaded tasks without a dramatic drop-off in per-core efficiency.

The Intel Core 7 251E, based on its specifications, targets a different workload profile. Its 24 cores and 32 threads, paired with a 65 watt TDP and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, position it for desktop environments where raw parallel throughput matters. The AMD part's 28 watt TDP and 5.00 GHz boost clock orient it toward embedded and mobile applications where power constraints are tighter. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator.

The database's percentile rankings reinforce the measured gap. The AMD part's 91st percentile placement indicates that its 52901 average score exceeds the vast majority of tracked CPUs. The Intel part's 50th percentile reflects its zero-score status, which is a data artifact rather than a genuine performance tier. Until benchmark results are recorded for the Intel processor, the AMD part remains the only verified performer in this pairing.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has an average benchmark score of 52901, while the Intel Core 7 251E has an average benchmark score of 0 due to having no recorded test results.

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

A: The AMD part's 52901 average score is 0.1 percent above the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F (52873), 0.1 percent below the Intel Xeon 634 (52974), 0.6 percent below the AMD EPYC 7313P (53206), and 0.7 percent below the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53288).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads.

Q: What is the highest recorded benchmark score for the AMD processor?

A: The highest score is 327891 in the PassMark data compression test. Other notable scores include 87940 in integer math and 55799 in floating-point math.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251E have any benchmark data in the database?

A: No, the Intel Core 7 251E has an empty benchmarks array, resulting in an average score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 251E uses 24 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for the AMD part and 2.10 GHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz and 5.60 GHz respectively. TDP ratings are 28 watts for AMD and 65 watts for Intel.

The AMD processor mounts in AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel processor uses Intel Socket 1700. Process nodes differ significantly: the AMD part uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm process at Intel. Die sizes are 233 mm² for AMD and 257 mm² for Intel. L2 cache differs per core, with AMD at 1 MB per core and Intel at 2 MB per core. L3 cache is 8 MB for AMD and 36 MB shared for Intel. L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses and both have 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe generations differ: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics differ, with the AMD part using Radeon 880M and the Intel part using UHD Graphics 770. Market segments are mobile for AMD and desktop for Intel. Release dates are 2026-03-08 for the AMD part and 2025-01-12 for the Intel part. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $384 and a known part number of SRQDUQ657, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP and an unknown part number. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is built on the Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation, which uses a Zen 5 / Zen 5c core architecture. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 7 generation based on the Bartlett Lake architecture. The AMD part's 4 nm process at TSMC gives it a manufacturing advantage in transistor density, while the Intel part's 10 nm process at Intel represents an older node generation.

Cache architecture differs in structure. The AMD part provides 1 MB of L2 per core and an 8 MB L3 cache. The Intel part provides 2 MB of L2 per core and a 36 MB shared L3 cache. The larger L3 on the Intel part could benefit workloads with high data reuse, while the AMD part's smaller L3 is paired with lower power targets. The AMD part's 233 mm² die is smaller than the Intel part's 257 mm² die, despite the AMD part using a denser process node.

The AMD processor integrates a Radeon 880M graphics solution, while the Intel processor uses UHD Graphics 770. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, reflecting its mobile-oriented design, whereas the Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5, which suits its desktop positioning. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the AMD part limited to Gen 4 and the Intel part offering Gen 5, giving the Intel platform higher available bandwidth for expansion devices.

The TDP difference of 28 watts versus 65 watts marks the most consequential architectural outcome. The AMD part's lower power envelope aligns with embedded and mobile use cases, while the Intel part's higher power allowance supports sustained multithreaded throughput on desktop platforms. The Intel part's 24-core configuration likely relies on its higher TDP to maintain clocks across all cores, whereas the AMD part's 8-core design achieves its 5.00 GHz boost within a much tighter power budget.

Both processors support ECC memory, and both use dual-channel memory buses with identical 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part's production status is active, as is the Intel part's. The AMD part's release date of 2026-03-08 comes after the Intel part's release date of 2025-01-12. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $384, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor offers an unlocked multiplier, so both are locked to their factory clock configurations.