AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a lopsided contest. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 secures 9 wins out of 11 benchmark categories, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 manages only 2. The most dramatic Intel victory comes in the prime number search test, where it scores 358 against AMD's 71, a delta of 80.2%. This is not a marginal gap; it indicates a fundamental difference in how each processor handles this particular workload.

Floating point math shows another substantial Intel advantage. The Core Ultra 5 225 delivers 92038 points versus 55799 for the AMD part, putting Intel ahead by 39.4%. Physics calculations follow a similar pattern, with Intel scoring 2342 compared to AMD's 1210, a 48.3% delta. These three tests alone suggest Intel has a commanding lead in compute-heavy tasks that rely on sustained mathematical throughput.

The multithreaded PassMark score also favors Intel, though by a smaller margin. Intel records 30459 against AMD's 25889, a 15% difference. Single-thread performance follows the same direction, with Intel at 4412 and AMD at 4029, an 8.7% gap. The extended instructions test shows Intel ahead by 10.9%, and random string sorting gives Intel a narrower 4.9% edge. Data encryption rounds out Intel's wins with a 28% advantage, scoring 22285 versus 16055.

AMD's two victories are notable for their specificity. In integer math, the Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 87940 against Intel's 65345, a commanding 34.6% lead. This is the largest delta in either direction across the entire benchmark set. Data compression also goes to AMD, with a score of 327891 versus 302811, an 8.3% advantage. These wins suggest AMD has optimized its architecture for integer-heavy and compression-oriented tasks, even while trailing in most other categories.

The average benchmark scores place the two processors in very different competitive brackets. AMD's average of 52901 places it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals are high-end desktop and server parts: the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F at 52873 (0.1% behind), the Intel Xeon 634 at 52974 (0.1% ahead), the AMD EPYC 7313P at 53206 (0.6% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53288 (0.7% ahead). Intel's average of 36938 sits in the 85th percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945, the Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37018, the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093, and the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112. The delta between these two processors is substantial: AMD's average is roughly 43% higher than Intel's.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies. AMD uses a hybrid core layout with Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores, codenamed Gorgon Point, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. Intel uses Arrow Lake-S, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, on TSMC's 3 nm node. The smaller process node gives Intel a manufacturing advantage, though both rely on the same foundry.

Core counts differ significantly. AMD provides 8 cores and 16 threads, while Intel provides 10 cores but only 10 threads. Intel's lack of simultaneous multithreading means its thread count equals its core count, while AMD doubles its threads through SMT. This explains why AMD's multithreaded score of 25889 trails Intel's 30459 despite AMD having more threads: Intel's individual cores are faster in most workloads.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. Intel allocates 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 20 MB of shared L3. Intel's L3 cache is 2.5 times larger, which helps explain its advantage in data-heavy tasks like encryption and floating point math. The larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations also give Intel a structural benefit in single-threaded performance.

Memory support shows a split. AMD supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while Intel supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but Intel's memory bandwidth is higher at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD's 89.6 GB/s. AMD supports ECC memory; Intel does not. This makes AMD the more robust choice for error-sensitive embedded workloads.

PCIe connectivity also differs. Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes. The newer PCIe standard and additional lanes give Intel more headroom for expansion cards and high-speed storage. Integrated graphics favor AMD, which pairs the CPU with a Radeon 880M, while Intel uses an Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. Die size is similar, with AMD at 233 mm² and Intel at 243 mm², but Intel's transistor count is listed at 17,800 million while AMD's is not specified.

Power envelopes differ considerably. AMD is rated at 28 W TDP, while Intel is rated at 65 W TDP. This is a major architectural distinction: AMD achieves its results within a much tighter power budget, while Intel draws more power to reach higher performance in most tests. Socket compatibility also separates them, with AMD using Socket FP8 and Intel using Socket 1851.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports a clear use-case split. Intel wins in compute-heavy scientific and mathematical workloads. Its floating point math score of 92038, prime number score of 358, and physics score of 2342 make it the stronger option for simulations, rendering, and numerical analysis. The 48.3% lead in physics and 39.4% lead in floating point math are decisive margins that point to sustained heavy computation.

Intel also wins in general productivity. Its multithreaded score of 30459 and single-thread score of 4412 indicate stronger all-around performance for typical desktop tasks, including office applications, web browsing, and content creation. The 15% multithreaded advantage and 8.7% single-thread advantage are consistent across the board.

AMD wins in integer-heavy applications. The 34.6% lead in integer math suggests strong performance in database operations, financial calculations, and other workloads that process large volumes of discrete values. Its data compression score of 327891, 8.3% ahead of Intel, makes it suitable for archiving, backup, and data transfer tasks where compression throughput matters.

The power envelope also favors AMD for certain deployments. At 28 W TDP versus Intel's 65 W, AMD is the better fit for compact, thermally constrained systems, embedded devices, and mobile platforms. The market segment confirms this: AMD is listed as Mobile, while Intel is listed as Desktop. AMD's support for ECC memory and LPDDR5X further positions it for embedded and reliability-focused environments.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has an average benchmark score of 52901, placing it in the 91st percentile, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 averages 36938, placing it in the 85th percentile.

Q: How does the Intel processor achieve higher multithreaded performance despite having fewer threads?

A: Intel scores 30459 in the PassMark multithreaded test versus AMD's 25889, a 15% advantage. Intel has 10 cores and 10 threads, while AMD has 8 cores and 16 threads, but Intel's larger cache (20 MB L3 versus 8 MB) and higher base clock (3.30 GHz versus 2.00 GHz) contribute to its lead.

Q: In which benchmark does AMD show its largest advantage?

A: AMD leads by 34.6% in integer math, scoring 87940 against Intel's 65345. It also wins data compression by 8.3%, scoring 327891 versus 302811.

Q: Does the Intel processor support ECC memory?

A: No. Intel does not support ECC memory, while AMD does.

Q: Which processor has faster memory bandwidth?

A: Intel has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while AMD has 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but Intel supports only DDR5, while AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor based on average score?

A: AMD's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F at 52873, just 0.1% behind, followed by the Intel Xeon 634 at 52974. Intel's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945, with a delta of 0%, followed by the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37018.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. AMD provides 8 cores and 16 threads, while Intel provides 10 cores and 10 threads. Base clocks favor Intel at 3.30 GHz versus AMD's 2.00 GHz, while boost clocks are close, with AMD at 5.00 GHz and Intel at 4.90 GHz. TDP differs substantially: AMD is rated at 28 W, Intel at 65 W.

Process nodes differ, with AMD on 4 nm and Intel on 3 nm, both from TSMC. AMD's codename is Gorgon Point with a Zen 5 / Zen 5c generation, while Intel's is Arrow Lake-S with an Arrow Lake generation. Die sizes are similar, 233 mm² for AMD and 243 mm² for Intel, but Intel lists 17,800 million transistors while AMD does not specify a count.

Cache configurations are distinct. AMD uses 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core with 8 MB L3, while Intel uses 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core with 20 MB shared L3. Memory support differs, with AMD supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X and Intel supporting only DDR5. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported by AMD but not Intel.

PCIe generations differ, with AMD on Gen 4 with 16 lanes and Intel on Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are Radeon 880M for AMD and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU for Intel. Market segments also split, with AMD classified as Mobile and Intel as Desktop. Sockets are incompatible, with AMD using Socket FP8 and Intel using Socket 1851. Launch MSRP for the Intel part is $246, while AMD has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows two processors built for different priorities. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 wins 9 of 11 head-to-head tests, with decisive margins in floating point math, physics, and prime number calculations. Its higher base clock, larger cache, and faster memory bandwidth support its lead in general compute tasks. Desktop users running simulations, content creation workloads, or heavy multithreaded applications will find the Intel part consistently faster.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 justifies its existence through specialization. Its 34.6% lead in integer math and 8.3% lead in data compression make it the better choice for workloads that process discrete values or compress data. Its 28 W TDP, ECC memory support, LPDDR5X compatibility, and mobile classification position it for embedded systems where power efficiency and reliability matter more than raw throughput. Its average benchmark score of 52901 places it in the 91st percentile, far ahead of Intel's 36938 in the 85th percentile, but the head-to-head tests tell a different story for most tasks. The choice comes down to the workload: Intel for general performance, AMD for integer-heavy, power-constrained, or reliability-focused deployments.