AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data leaves no ambiguity about the performance hierarchy between these two processors. Across all eleven recorded Passmark comparisons, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 takes the win. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 does not claim a single benchmark victory, making the contest one-sided in terms of raw measured output.

The largest gap appears in the prime number finding test. The Intel part scores 459 while the AMD chip manages only 71, a delta of -84.5 percent for the AMD processor. This is a massive chasm in a workload that stresses integer iteration and branch prediction. The floating point math test also shows a dramatic separation: Intel scores 194988 against AMD's 55799, a -71.4 percent difference. These two tests suggest the Intel architecture handles mathematically intensive loops with far greater efficiency.

Data encryption shows a similar pattern. Intel records 46949 while AMD trails at 16055, a -65.8 percent delta. Physics simulation follows closely, with Intel at 3598 versus AMD's 1210, a -66.4 percent gap. The multithread benchmark, often a proxy for overall throughput, shows Intel at 56602 and AMD at 25889, a -54.3 percent difference. Integer math sees Intel at 164869 against AMD's 87940, a -46.7 percent gap, matching the extended instructions delta exactly, which also sits at -46.7 percent.

The narrower margins appear in single-threaded tasks. The single thread test shows Intel at 4881 versus AMD's 4029, a -17.5 percent delta. This is the closest contest in the entire comparison. Random string sorting has Intel at 73651 and AMD at 34801, a -52.7 percent gap. Data compression sees Intel at 602121 versus AMD's 327891, a -45.5 percent difference.

The average benchmark score for the Intel part is 75488, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD chip averages 52901, which lands in the 91st percentile. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P with a delta of -0.1 percent and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at -0.3 percent. The AMD chip's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F at 0.1 percent and the Intel Xeon 634 at -0.1 percent.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is stark: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded test. There is no category where the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 outperforms its competitor. However, the degree of victory varies significantly by workload type, which matters for real-world application targeting.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel part leads by 17.5 percent. This is the smallest margin in the dataset. Applications that rely on one core, such as legacy software or lightly threaded interactive tasks, will see a modest but consistent advantage for Intel. The AMD chip's single-thread score of 4029 still places it in a competitive range, but the data shows Intel holds the edge.

For multi-threaded throughput, the Intel part's advantage balloons. The multithread score shows a 54.3 percent lead, and the physics test, which often scales with core count, shows a 66.4 percent lead. The prime number test, which can leverage parallel execution, shows the largest gap at 84.5 percent. The Intel part has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD chip has 8 cores and 16 threads. The thread count difference alone does not explain the full magnitude of the gap, but it correlates with the scaling observed.

For data-heavy operations, the Intel part leads by roughly half. Data compression shows a 45.5 percent edge, random string sorting shows 52.7 percent, and integer math shows 46.7 percent. The encryption test shows a 65.8 percent lead, suggesting the Intel part has stronger cryptographic instruction support or higher memory bandwidth feeding the encryption engine.

The AMD chip does have a notable asset: its 28 watt TDP versus Intel's 65 watt TDP. The data does not include power efficiency metrics, but the TDP figures indicate the AMD part operates in a lower thermal envelope. For embedded or mobile applications where heat dissipation is constrained, the AMD chip may be the only viable option despite its lower scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 averages 52901. The Intel part sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD chip sits in the 91st percentile.

Q: What is the closest benchmark margin between the two processors?

A: The single thread test shows the smallest gap. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4881, and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 4029, a delta of -17.5 percent for the AMD chip.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part does not use simultaneous multithreading, while the AMD part does.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The base clocks are 2.50 GHz for Intel and 2.00 GHz for AMD.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 89.6 GB/s. Both support dual-channel memory, and both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part also has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every major specification. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses 24 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The AMD chip has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

The TDP ratings differ substantially: Intel specifies 65 watts, AMD specifies 28 watts. The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 1851, AMD uses Socket FP8. The Intel part has a listed launch MSRP of $579, while the AMD chip has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Memory support shows a split. Both support dual-channel DDR5, but the AMD chip also supports LPDDR5X. The memory bandwidth figures are 102.4 GB/s for Intel and 89.6 GB/s for AMD. PCIe support differs as well: Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ: Intel uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, AMD uses Radeon 880M. The Intel part has a part number of SRQD4, while the AMD part has an unknown part number. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architecture reveals distinct design philosophies. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, with the Ultra 9 generation label. It uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC and has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses the Gorgon Point codename, belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation, and combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC and has a 233 mm² die size.

Cache organization differs significantly. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of L3 cache. The Intel L3 cache is four and a half times larger in total capacity.

The Intel part is a desktop segment product with a production status of Active and a release date of 2024-12-31. The AMD part is a mobile segment product, also Active, with a release date of 2026-03-08. The AMD chip's hybrid Zen 5 and Zen 5c core arrangement suggests a big.LITTLE style approach, though the database does not record the exact core distribution.

The AMD chip's memory controller supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, indicating flexibility for embedded or power-sensitive designs. The Intel part supports only DDR5. Both support ECC memory, which suits server or reliability-focused workloads. The PCIe generation gap, Gen 5 versus Gen 4, affects available bandwidth for expansion devices.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear conclusion for performance-focused users. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates every recorded test, with margins ranging from 17.5 percent in single-threaded work to 84.5 percent in prime number finding. Its 24 cores, larger caches, higher clocks, and Gen 5 PCIe support combine to deliver a higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking across all CPUs.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 offers a different value in the data: a 28 watt TDP, LPDDR5X memory support, and a mobile socket. For embedded applications where power draw and thermal output are constrained, the AMD chip's lower TDP may be decisive. The Intel part's 65 watt TDP requires more robust cooling and power delivery.

The single-thread margin of 17.5 percent is the closest contest, suggesting that for lightly threaded tasks, the AMD chip is not far behind. However, the multithread and math-intensive gaps are severe, and any workload that scales across cores will heavily favor Intel.

The release dates also matter. The AMD part is dated 2026-03-08, while the Intel part is dated 2024-12-31. The Intel chip has been available longer, which may matter for deployment timelines. The AMD part's architectural mix of Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores suggests a power-aware design, but the recorded benchmarks do not show a performance advantage in any category.

Users who need maximum throughput, large cache capacity, and the latest PCIe standard should select the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. Users who need a low-power embedded or mobile processor with ECC support and flexible memory options, and who can tolerate lower benchmark scores, should consider the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164. The data does not support any other conclusion.