AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core i5-14600 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and the Intel Core i5-14600 represent two distinct design philosophies: a power-sipping, integrated mobile processor versus a high-throughput desktop part. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Intel Core i5-14600 winning every head-to-head benchmark in the database. However, the P164’s profile, including its 28 W TDP and advanced process node, establishes a different set of priorities that make it a relevant contender for specific embedded and mobile workloads. The following analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural divergences, and the specific use cases where each processor demonstrates its strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 records an average benchmark score of 52901, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core i5-14600 records a lower average benchmark score of 44889, placing it in the 89th percentile.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F?

A: The database shows the P164 is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F, which has an average score of 52873, a delta of only 0.1%. This places the P164 in a competitive position within its performance bracket.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14600 uses 14 cores and 20 threads. This gives the Intel part a significant advantage in heavily threaded workloads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Both the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and the Intel Core i5-14600 support ECC memory. This makes both viable for workstation and reliability-focused applications.

Q: What is the boost clock speed for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14600 has a slightly higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Q: In the head-to-head passmark tests, what is the smallest performance gap?

A: The smallest gap is in the passmark_single_thread test, where the Intel Core i5-14600 leads by 3.3% with a score of 4167 versus the P164’s 4029. This indicates that single-threaded performance is the closest contest between the two.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data shows a sweep for the Intel Core i5-14600, which wins all 11 recorded comparisons. The most decisive victories for the Intel part are in intensive compute tasks. In passmark_find_prime_numbers, the i5-14600 scores 155 against the P164’s 71, a 54.2% advantage. The passmark_physics test shows a similar pattern, with the Intel part scoring 2330 versus 1210, a 48.1% lead. These results indicate that the Intel Core i5-14600 is the clear winner for raw computational throughput, especially in integer-heavy and physics simulation workloads.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164, while losing every head-to-head contest, still holds a strategic advantage in its market segment. Its 28 W TDP is less than half of the Intel Core i5-14600’s 65 W TDP, making it the more appropriate choice for thermally constrained, fanless, or battery-powered embedded systems. The P164’s 4 nm process node, built by TSMC, provides a fundamental efficiency advantage over the Intel part’s 10 nm node. The data does not quantify power consumption, but the TDP figures alone define the P164 as the winner in power-sensitive deployments. Its integrated Radeon 880M graphics also differentiate it from the Intel UHD Graphics 770, making it a stronger candidate for visually oriented embedded applications where a discrete GPU is not feasible.

The Intel Core i5-14600 wins on memory flexibility, supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, whereas the P164 is limited to DDR5 and LPDDR5X. For systems with existing DDR4 infrastructure, the Intel part is the pragmatic choice. The Intel processor also offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the P164 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, giving the desktop part a bandwidth advantage for high-speed expansion cards.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between the two processors is substantial. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses the Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core i5-14600 uses the Raptor Lake-R codename, part of the Core 14th Gen series, and is built on Intel’s 10 nm process. The process node difference is significant: the P164’s 4 nm process allows for a smaller die size of 233 mm², while the Intel part’s die is larger at 257 mm².

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both processors feature an 80 KB L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the P164 has 1 MB per core, while the i5-14600 has 2 MB per core. The L3 cache is a major point of divergence. The AMD part has a total of 8 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel part has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This larger L3 cache on the Intel part supports its higher core count and helps in workloads with large working sets.

The memory controllers are also distinct. The P164 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a measured bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core i5-14600 supports DDR4 and DDR5, but the database does not record a bandwidth figure for it. The P164’s memory bandwidth is a known quantity, and it relies on dual-channel configuration. The Intel part also uses a dual-channel memory bus. Both processors support ECC memory, which is a notable feature for embedded and workstation reliability.

Another key difference is the integrated graphics. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses the Radeon 880M, while the Intel Core i5-14600 uses UHD Graphics 770. The database does not provide comparative graphics benchmarks, so the relative GPU performance is not quantified here.

Specification Differences

The core specifications show a clear split between the two processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.00 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its TDP is 28 W, and it uses the AMD Socket FP8. It is classified as a Mobile market segment processor, with an active production status and a release date of March 8, 2026. The Intel Core i5-14600 has 14 cores and 20 threads, a base clock of 2.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Its TDP is 65 W, and it uses the Intel Socket 1700. It is classified as a Desktop market segment processor, with a release date of January 7, 2024. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $255; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part has a recorded part number of SRN44, while the AMD part number is listed as unknown. The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm process by Intel. Die sizes are 233 mm² for the AMD part and 257 mm² for the Intel part. The L2 cache is 1 MB per core for AMD and 2 MB per core for Intel. The L3 cache is 8 MB for AMD and 24 MB shared for Intel.

Memory support differs: the AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s; the Intel part has no recorded memory bandwidth. PCIe support also differs: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Both support ECC memory. The integrated graphics differ: Radeon 880M on the AMD side, UHD Graphics 770 on the Intel side.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmarks are entirely dominated by the Intel Core i5-14600. The largest margin is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the Intel part scores 155 against the AMD part’s 71, a delta of -54.2%. This test is highly sensitive to integer execution and cache efficiency, and the Intel part’s 14 cores, 20 threads, and larger 24 MB L3 cache produce a decisive advantage.

The passmark_physics test shows the second-largest gap. The Intel Core i5-14600 scores 2330, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 1210, a delta of -48.1%. This is another multi-threaded workload, and the core count disparity is the primary factor. The Intel part’s 14 cores versus 8 cores provides nearly double the physical resources for parallel physics calculations.

In passmark_data_encryption, the Intel part scores 25082 against the AMD part’s 16055, a delta of -36%. This is a demanding workload that benefits from both high clock speeds and strong memory throughput. The Intel part’s boost clock of 5.20 GHz and support for DDR5 likely contribute to this performance. The passmark_floating_point_math test shows a delta of -34.9%, with the Intel part scoring 85759 versus 55799. This indicates a substantial advantage in scientific and engineering computations that rely on floating-point throughput.

The passmark_multithread test, a general measure of parallel performance, shows the Intel part scoring 35848 against 25889, a delta of -27.8%. The passmark_random_string_sorting test shows a similar pattern, with the Intel part scoring 48043 versus 34801, a delta of -27.6%. The passmark_integer_math test shows the Intel part at 117078 versus 87940, a delta of -24.9%. The passmark_data_compression test shows the Intel part at 434620 versus 327891, a delta of -24.6%.

The closest contest is in single-threaded performance. The passmark_single_thread test shows the Intel part scoring 4167 versus the AMD part’s 4029, a delta of only -3.3%. This suggests that the AMD P164’s Zen 5 architecture is highly competitive on a per-core basis, despite the overall multi-core deficit. The passmark_extended_instructions test also shows a narrow gap, with the Intel part scoring 25674 versus 24193, a delta of -5.8%. These results indicate that for single-threaded or lightly threaded tasks, the two processors are much closer in capability, with the Intel part holding a modest edge.

The data confirms that the Intel Core i5-14600 is the superior processor for raw performance across all recorded benchmarks. However, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164’s 28 W TDP, 4 nm process, and smaller die size position it as a specialized part for embedded systems where efficiency and thermal constraints take precedence over peak throughput.