AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two mobile processors into distinct roles. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins 6 of the 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins 5. Despite the near-even split, the margins tell a clearer story. The AMD part dominates heavily in integer math, data compression, and extended instructions, with advantages ranging from 30.7% to 99.8%. The Intel part counters with wins in prime number finding, physics, floating point math, and single-thread tests, but its largest victory is 63.6% in prime number finding, and most of its wins are single-digit or low-double-digit margins.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is the choice for workloads that stress parallel throughput and data manipulation. Its multithread score of 25889 is 30.7% ahead of the Intel part's 19810. Integer math shows a 99.8% advantage, essentially double the output. Data compression is 75.8% faster. The AMD processor also lands at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, versus the Intel part's 76th percentile. Average benchmark scores confirm the gap: 52901 for AMD versus 23219 for Intel, though the Intel average includes Cinebench results not present for the AMD part.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the pick for single-threaded responsiveness and specific compute patterns. Its single-thread score of 4274 beats the AMD part's 4029 by 5.7%. Physics simulation shows a 26.1% advantage. Prime number finding is 63.6% faster, a substantial margin for that specific workload. Floating point math also favors Intel by 6.3%.

Systems integrators and embedded designers should choose based on workload mix. If the target application involves data compression, encryption, integer-heavy logic, or multithreaded general compute, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 delivers significantly more throughput. If the application prioritizes single-thread latency, physics calculations, or prime-related math, the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V holds the edge. The data does not support one processor as universally superior; it supports a workload-specific split.

Architecture Differences

The two processors take fundamentally different design approaches. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses the Gorgon Point codename from the Ryzen AI Embedded generation, built on Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, meaning simultaneous multithreading is enabled. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture from the Core Ultra Series 2, also with 8 cores but only 8 threads, so it lacks simultaneous multithreading.

Process technology differs. AMD uses TSMC's 4 nm node, while Intel uses TSMC's 3 nm node. The AMD die measures 233 mm², while the Intel die size is not recorded. Clock speeds are close: AMD's base clock is 2.00 GHz with a 5.00 GHz boost, while Intel's base is 3.30 GHz with a 5.10 GHz boost. The Intel part starts from a higher base clock, but the boost delta is only 0.10 GHz.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of L3. Intel allocates 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, with 12 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has more cache at every level, which partially explains its single-thread advantage.

Integrated graphics differ. AMD pairs the CPU with a Radeon 880M, while Intel uses an Arc 140V. The database does not include graphics benchmark scores, so no performance comparison is possible from the recorded data.

Memory support also differs. AMD supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Intel supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, a 52.3% higher memory bandwidth figure. AMD supports ECC memory; Intel does not.

PCIe connectivity differs. AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Intel provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part has a newer PCIe generation but far fewer lanes.

Release timing differs. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V launched on 2024-09-23. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 launched later on 2026-03-08. Both are active production parts, both are mobile market segments, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins in six benchmark categories. The largest win is integer math, where it scores 87940 versus 44019, a 99.8% advantage. Data compression shows 327891 versus 186521, a 75.8% lead. Extended instructions favor AMD by 55%, with scores of 24193 versus 15613. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 53.8%, 34801 versus 22622. Multithread performance favors AMD by 30.7%, 25889 versus 19810. Data encryption also goes to AMD, with 16055 versus 14141, a 13.5% margin.

These wins cluster around parallel integer workloads and data throughput. The AMD part uses its 16 threads effectively, and the SMT advantage is visible in multithread and integer-heavy tests. The data suggests the AMD processor is better suited for server-like tasks, database operations, compression pipelines, and encryption workloads running on a mobile platform.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins in five categories. Prime number finding is its largest win: 195 versus 71, a 63.6% advantage. Physics simulation favors Intel by 26.1%, 1637 versus 1210. Floating point math goes to Intel by 6.3%, 59536 versus 55799. Single-thread tests show Intel ahead by 5.7%, 4274 versus 4029.

These wins indicate the Intel part excels in latency-sensitive, branch-heavy, or floating-point-heavy workloads. The higher base clock of 3.30 GHz and larger per-core cache likely contribute. The prime number test, which often rewards strong single-core integer execution without thread scaling, shows the largest Intel margin.

The winsA and winsB counts are close, but the asymmetry in margins matters. AMD's average winning margin across its six wins is 54.8%, while Intel's average winning margin across its five wins is 21.2%. The AMD part wins bigger when it wins, suggesting that workloads which favor AMD will see dramatic improvements, while workloads which favor Intel will see more modest gains.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 16 threads from 8 cores. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 threads from 8 cores. AMD enables simultaneous multithreading; Intel does not.

Q: How do the single-thread scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V scores 4274 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 5.7% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164's 4029.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 136.5 GB/s memory bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 89.6 GB/s. Intel's figure is higher by 52.3%.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V does not record ECC support.

Q: What is the multithread benchmark difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 25889 in PassMark multithread, 30.7% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V's 19810.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 MB of L3 cache.

Q: How do the PCIe configurations differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 provides 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V provides 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single benchmark delta in the comparison is integer math. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 87940, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V scores 44019. That is a 99.8% advantage, effectively double the integer throughput. This test often reflects compiler optimization, core architecture, and thread scaling, and the AMD part's 16 threads give it a structural advantage over Intel's 8 threads.

Data compression shows the second-largest margin. AMD scores 327891, Intel scores 186521, a 75.8% delta. This workload benefits from parallel compression streams, and the AMD part's thread count again plays a role. The absolute score difference of 141370 is the largest point gap in any test.

Extended instructions favor AMD by 55%, with scores of 24193 versus 15613. Random string sorting favors AMD by 53.8%, 34801 versus 22622. Both tests reward memory access patterns and parallel execution. The AMD part's 16 threads and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth appear sufficient for these workloads, despite Intel's higher 136.5 GB/s bandwidth.

Multithread performance is a 30.7% win for AMD, 25889 versus 19810. This is the broadest test of overall parallel capability, and the result aligns with the thread count difference. Data encryption is a closer 13.5% win for AMD, 16055 versus 14141, suggesting the Intel part's architecture is competitive in this area despite fewer threads.

The Intel wins start with prime number finding. Intel scores 195, AMD scores 71, a 63.6% delta. This is the largest percentage win for either side, but the absolute scores are low, so the practical impact may be limited to specific mathematical workloads. Physics simulation shows Intel ahead by 26.1%, 1637 versus 1210. This test often correlates with single-core efficiency and cache behavior, where the Intel part's 12 MB L3 and 2.5 MB L2 per core help.

Floating point math is a modest 6.3% win for Intel, 59536 versus 55799. The single-thread test, recorded twice in the data as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, shows Intel ahead by 5.7%, 4274 versus 4029. The Intel part's higher base clock of 3.30 GHz and higher boost of 5.10 GHz likely contribute to these single-thread results.

The head-to-head data also reveals the average benchmark score difference. AMD's average is 52901, placing it at the 91st percentile. Intel's average is 23219, at the 76th percentile. Nearest rivals confirm the positioning: AMD's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F at 52873, a 0.1% delta, and the Intel Xeon 634 at 52974, a -0.1% delta. Intel's closest rival is the Intel Core i9-11900F at 23254, a -0.2% delta, and the AMD EPYC 4124P at 23167, a 0.2% delta. The two processors do not share a rival pool, reflecting their different performance tiers.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear divergences across every major category.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V uses 8 cores and 8 threads. Thread count is the most consequential difference for multithreaded workloads.

Base clocks differ: AMD runs at 2.00 GHz, Intel at 3.30 GHz. Boost clocks are closer: AMD at 5.00 GHz, Intel at 5.10 GHz. Intel's higher base clock suggests better stock performance in lightly threaded tasks.

Power draw differs. AMD has a TDP of 28, Intel has a TDP of 30. The difference is small, but Intel's higher TDP aligns with its higher base clock.

Socket types are incompatible. AMD uses AMD Socket FP8, Intel uses Intel BGA 2833. These are physically different platforms with no interchangeability.

Process nodes differ. AMD uses 4 nm, Intel uses 3 nm. The Intel part uses a smaller node, which typically allows higher density and efficiency, though the recorded data does not include efficiency benchmarks.

Die size is only recorded for AMD: 233 mm². The Intel die size is not recorded in the database.

Cache differs at every level. AMD has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB L3. Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Intel has more cache at every level, which supports its single-thread wins.

Memory support differs. AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X; Intel supports only LPDDR5X. Both are dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 136.5 GB/s for Intel. ECC support is present only on AMD.

PCIe differs. AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes. Intel provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes. The lane count difference is substantial for expansion options.

Integrated graphics differ. AMD uses Radeon 880M, Intel uses Arc 140V. No graphics benchmarks are recorded.

Release dates differ. Intel launched 2024-09-23, AMD launched 2026-03-08. The Intel part is older by roughly one and a half years. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers.