AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core i3-14100F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 across all eleven shared PassMark tests. The Intel Core i3-14100F does not win a single head-to-head comparison. The largest margin appears in extended instructions, where the AMD part scores 24,193 against Intel’s 11,984, a 101.9% advantage. This category measures SIMD and specialized instruction throughput, and the doubling suggests the Zen 5 architecture in the AMD chip handles these workloads far more efficiently.

Data compression shows a similar gap. The AMD processor scores 327,891 versus 176,106 for the Intel chip, an 86.2% delta. That is a massive difference for a task that many desktop users perform regularly, such as archiving or file transfer. Integer math also favors AMD heavily, with scores of 87,940 and 45,357 respectively, a 93.9% lead. Random string sorting follows the same pattern, 34,801 versus 17,596, a 97.8% delta, indicating that the AMD part’s memory subsystem and core count handle pointer-chasing workloads much better.

The multi-threaded PassMark score, which aggregates many of these individual tests, lands at 25,889 for AMD and 15,420 for Intel, a 67.9% advantage. That result aligns with the core count difference: the Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i3-14100F has 4 cores and 8 threads. Floating point math also shows a clear separation, 55,799 versus 35,370, a 57.8% delta. Data encryption, another heavily parallel workload, sees AMD at 16,055 versus Intel’s 8,922, a 79.9% lead.

The single-thread results are closer but still favor AMD. The Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 4,029, while the Core i3-14100F scores 3,778, a 6.6% delta. This is notable because the Intel chip has a higher base clock (3.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz), yet cannot match the AMD part’s boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The physics test also goes to AMD, 1,210 versus 1,077, a 12.3% delta. Prime number finding shows the smallest relative margin, 71 versus 61, a 16.4% lead for AMD, but it still counts as a win.

The average benchmark score for the AMD processor is 52,901, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel chip averages 18,519, sitting in the 72nd percentile. Even the AMD part’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F at 52,873 and the Intel Xeon 634 at 52,974, sit within 0.1% of its average, confirming that the Ryzen AI Embedded P164 competes at a much higher performance tier than the Core i3-14100F.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multithreaded PassMark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 25,889, which is 67.9% higher than the Intel Core i3-14100F’s 15,420.

Q: Is the single-thread performance gap between the two chips large?

A: No, it is relatively small. The AMD part scores 4,029 versus 3,778 for Intel, a 6.6% delta. Both chips are capable in lightly threaded tasks, but AMD still holds the edge.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-14100F have integrated graphics?

A: No, the integrated graphics field for the Intel chip is listed as N/A. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 includes a Radeon 880M iGPU.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. The Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5, giving it flexibility for older motherboards.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 ranks in the 91st percentile, while the Intel Core i3-14100F ranks in the 72nd percentile.

Q: What is the socket difference between the two?

A: The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700. They are not interchangeable.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses the Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation built on Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The Intel Core i3-14100F uses the Raptor Lake-R codename and belongs to the Core i3 generation based on Raptor Lake Refresh. The manufacturing process differs significantly: AMD uses TSMC’s 4 nm node, while Intel uses its own 10 nm process. This process advantage likely contributes to the AMD chip’s higher efficiency, as its TDP is 28 watts compared to Intel’s 58 watts.

Cache layouts also differ. Both chips have 80 KB of L1 cache per core, matching per-core L1 design. The L2 cache differs: AMD provides 1 MB per core, while Intel provides 1.25 MB per core. The L3 cache is where the bigger gap appears. AMD has 8 MB total, while Intel has 12 MB shared. Despite Intel’s larger L3, the AMD chip still dominates in most memory-intensive benchmarks, which suggests the Zen 5 core design and memory bandwidth compensate for the smaller cache. The AMD part’s memory bandwidth is rated at 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel chip has no recorded bandwidth figure in the database.

PCIe support also diverges. The AMD processor offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel processor offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Intel’s newer PCIe standard provides higher theoretical bandwidth for expansion cards, but the AMD chip’s integrated Radeon 880M graphics means it does not require a discrete GPU for display output. The Intel chip has no integrated graphics at all, forcing a dedicated GPU in any system using it.

The die sizes reflect the different transistor budgets. AMD’s die measures 233 mm², while Intel’s measures 163 mm². The larger AMD die accommodates 8 cores, the Radeon 880M iGPU, and the 4 nm process design. Intel’s smaller die holds 4 cores and no iGPU, which explains its compact size. Both processors support ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers, so overclocking is not an option on either platform.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious split. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core i3-14100F has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: AMD runs at 2.00 GHz, while Intel runs at 3.50 GHz. Boost clocks reverse the order, with AMD reaching 5.00 GHz and Intel topping out at 4.70 GHz. The TDP values show a 30-watt gap, 28 watts for AMD versus 58 watts for Intel, meaning the AMD part draws less power while delivering higher benchmark scores.

Memory support is another distinguishing factor. AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD chip’s memory bus is dual-channel with a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel chip also uses a dual-channel bus, but no bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. Both support ECC memory, which is relevant for embedded and workstation use cases.

The sockets are incompatible. AMD uses Socket FP8, a mobile and embedded platform socket, while Intel uses Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The market segments reflect this: AMD is listed as Mobile, while Intel is listed as Desktop. Release dates also differ, with the AMD part dated 2026-03-08 and the Intel part dated 2024-01-07. The Intel chip has a recorded launch MSRP of $109, while the AMD chip has no launch MSRP listed.

PCIe generation differs, with AMD at Gen 4 and Intel at Gen 5, both with 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are present only on the AMD chip, which includes a Radeon 880M. The Intel chip has no integrated graphics. The AMD part’s part number is unknown, while the Intel part uses the SRMX2 stepping.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is not about raw performance. Instead, the data points to specific workload types where the AMD chip’s advantages are most pronounced. The 101.9% lead in extended instructions makes it the clear choice for any application that relies on SIMD, cryptography, or media encoding. The 93.9% lead in integer math and the 97.8% lead in random string sorting suggest strong performance in database operations, compression tools, and scripting workloads that hammer integer arithmetic.

Multi-threaded productivity is another AMD stronghold. The 67.9% multithread delta and the 79.9% encryption delta indicate that video rendering, software compilation, and data encryption tasks will finish substantially faster on the AMD part. Its 8-core, 16-thread configuration gives it a natural advantage in parallel workloads, even with a lower base clock. The 28-watt TDP also makes it suitable for compact systems or embedded deployments where thermal and power budgets are tight.

The Intel Core i3-14100F has no benchmark wins in this dataset, but its specification sheet suggests where it could fit. Its 3.50 GHz base clock and 4.70 GHz boost clock keep it competitive in single-threaded tasks, where it trails AMD by only 6.6%. It supports DDR4 memory, which allows builders to reuse older, cheaper DIMMs. The Intel Socket 1700 platform is widely available in the desktop market, and the recorded launch MSRP of $109 positions it as a low-cost entry point. However, the data does not show any performance category where the Intel chip surpasses the AMD part.

The AMD chip’s integrated Radeon 880M graphics give it another use case: systems that need display output without a discrete GPU. The Intel chip requires a separate graphics card, which adds cost and power consumption. For embedded or small-form-factor systems, the AMD part’s all-in-one design is more practical.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 outperforms the Intel Core i3-14100F in every single recorded test, with deltas ranging from 6.6% in single-threaded work to 101.9% in extended instructions. The AMD part’s average benchmark score of 52,901 places it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel chip’s 18,519 average sits in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals to the AMD chip, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53,288 and the AMD EPYC 7313P at 53,206, are all within 0.7% of its score, confirming that the Ryzen AI Embedded P164 competes with high-end desktop and server parts.

For a builder prioritizing raw throughput in multi-threaded workloads, the AMD processor is the only choice from this comparison. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, and 5.00 GHz boost clock deliver results that the 4-core Intel chip cannot approach. The 28-watt TDP also makes it far more efficient per unit of performance, which matters for embedded systems or any build with strict power limits. The integrated Radeon 880M graphics remove the need for a discrete GPU, further reducing system complexity.

The Intel Core i3-14100F does retain one practical advantage from its specification sheet: DDR4 memory support and a desktop Socket 1700 platform. Builders with existing DDR4 modules or LGA1700 motherboards can adopt it with minimal additional cost. Its higher base clock of 3.50 GHz also makes it acceptable for basic single-threaded tasks, where it trails AMD by only 6.6%. But the database shows zero workload categories where the Intel chip wins, and its 58-watt TDP is more than double AMD’s for significantly less performance.

Anyone choosing between these two should use the data as the deciding factor. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 delivers better scores across the board, ranks far higher in the global percentile, and does so while consuming less power. The Intel chip is a functional desktop processor, but it is not competitive with the AMD part in any measured metric. The verdict from the recorded benchmarks is clear: the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is the superior processor in every tested category.