AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records a stark performance gap between the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and the Intel Processor N150. The AMD part, with an average benchmark score of 52,901, sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Processor N150 averages 1,025 and lands in the 28th percentile. That is a difference of roughly 51.6x in average score, and it shows up across every metric the two chips share.

The most direct comparison available comes from the AMD part's PassMark suite. The Ryzen AI Embedded P164 scores 25,889 in multi-threaded work, 4,029 in single-threaded work, and 87,940 in integer math. The Intel Processor N150's recorded benchmarks are from Cinebench instead, so direct cross-suite comparisons are limited, but the Cinebench R23 numbers for Intel (2,590.5 multi-core, 935 single-core) place it far below the AMD chip's raw throughput. The AMD part also delivers 55,799 in floating point math, 24,193 in extended instructions, and 16,055 in data encryption, none of which the Intel chip has a matching recorded result for.

The AMD part's nearest rivals in the database are all desktop and server class chips. It trails the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X by 0.7%, the AMD EPYC 7313P by 0.6%, and the Intel Xeon 634 by 0.1%, while leading the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F by 0.1%. Those are tiny margins, which means the Ryzen AI Embedded P164's performance profile is firmly in high-end desktop territory. The Intel Processor N150's nearest rivals are very different: it sits within 0.2% of the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T, the Intel Core i3-4340, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U, and the Intel Core i7-5650U. Those are older or low-power parts, and the margins are again small, but the company is far less demanding.

In single-thread performance, the AMD part posts 4,029 on PassMark, a strong score for a mobile chip. The Intel N150's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935 is comparatively modest. The AMD part's boost clock of 5.00 GHz against the Intel part's 3.60 GHz explains part of that gap, but the architectural differences below matter more. The AMD chip also shows a 91st percentile ranking versus the Intel chip's 28th, meaning the AMD part outperforms roughly 91% of all recorded CPUs while the Intel part outperforms only about 28%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins in every category where recorded data exists. Its PassMark multi-thread score of 25,889 reflects 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Processor N150's 4 cores and 4 threads produce a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2,590.5. The AMD chip's 16 threads allow it to handle parallel workloads far more effectively. Integer math at 87,940 and floating point math at 55,799 show strong general compute, and the data compression score of 327,891 is the single highest recorded figure for the AMD chip. Random string sorting at 34,801 and physics at 1,210 round out a profile that suits heavy, sustained processing.

The Intel Processor N150 has no recorded wins in any shared benchmark category. Its strength is contextual: a 6 W TDP against the AMD part's 28 W TDP, and a single-channel memory bus against the AMD part's dual-channel design. The Intel chip's memory bandwidth is 38.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD, so the AMD part also wins on memory throughput. The Intel part's integrated UHD Graphics 730 is present, but the AMD part's Radeon 880M is the more capable integrated GPU on paper.

For workloads that favor low power draw, the Intel N150's 6 W TDP is the only area where it leads in the recorded data. The AMD chip's 28 W TDP is higher, but it delivers roughly 51.6x the average benchmark score. For workloads that favor raw compute, the AMD part wins decisively. The data does not show a single benchmark where the Intel part records a higher score.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses the Gorgon Point codename, belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation built on Zen 5 / Zen 5c cores, and is fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. The Intel Processor N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture, belongs to the Intel Processor generation based on Alder Lake-N, and is fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The process node difference alone, 4 nm versus 10 nm, gives AMD a significant density and efficiency advantage.

Core counts differ sharply. The AMD chip has 8 cores and 16 threads; the Intel chip has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part's thread count is double its core count, indicating simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part has no such capability. Cache hierarchies also differ. The AMD part uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Intel part uses 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip's per-core L2 design scales with core count, giving it 8 MB of L2 total, while the Intel chip's shared 2 MB L2 must serve all four cores.

Memory support separates the two further. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X across a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC memory support. The Intel part supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 across a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC. The AMD part's PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes; the Intel part uses Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes. The AMD die size is 233 mm²; the Intel die size is not recorded.

Clock behavior differs as well. The AMD part has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Intel base clock is unusually low, suggesting aggressive power management, consistent with its 6 W TDP. The AMD part's 28 W TDP allows far higher sustained clocks.

The AMD part uses an AMD Socket FP8 package; the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1264. The AMD part's integrated graphics are Radeon 880M; the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 730. The AMD part's production status is active, as is the Intel part's. The AMD part's release date is recorded as March 2026, while the Intel part's is November 2024. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part has a part number, SRPNR; the AMD part's part number is unknown.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports only one conclusion for compute performance: the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is in a different class. Its 91st percentile ranking, 8-core/16-thread configuration, 5.00 GHz boost clock, and 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth place it alongside desktop processors like the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and AMD EPYC 7313P, both of which it trails by less than 1%. The Intel Processor N150, at the 28th percentile, competes with decade-old parts like the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and the Intel Core i7-5650U.

The Intel N150's only recorded advantage is power draw. Its 6 W TDP is less than a quarter of the AMD part's 28 W TDP. For fanless or battery-constrained designs where compute is secondary, the Intel part's low power envelope and BGA 1264 socket make it a plausible choice. It also supports DDR4 memory, which the AMD part does not, and its older release date means it has been on the market longer.

The AMD part is the choice for any workload that needs multi-threaded throughput, high single-thread response, or memory bandwidth. Its 16 threads, dual-channel memory, ECC support, and Gen 4 PCIe make it suitable for embedded or mobile systems that must handle serious compute. The Intel part is the choice for minimal-power applications where the 6 W TDP is the primary constraint. The data does not show any compute benchmark where the Intel part wins.

The nearest-rival data reinforces the split. The AMD part's closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F (0.1% ahead), the Intel Xeon 634 (0.1% behind), the AMD EPYC 7313P (0.6% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (0.7% behind). Those are all high-end parts. The Intel part's closest competitors are the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i3-4340 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U (0.1% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-5650U (0.2% behind). Those are legacy or low-power parts. The company each chip keeps in the database tells the performance story as clearly as the scores themselves.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 than the Intel Processor N150?

A: The AMD part has an average benchmark score of 52,901 against the Intel part's 1,025, a roughly 51.6x difference. The AMD part ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs; the Intel part ranks in the 28th percentile.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD part has a 28 W TDP. The Intel part has a 6 W TDP.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD part supports ECC memory. The Intel part does not.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 on a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has higher boost clock?

A: The AMD part boosts to 5.00 GHz. The Intel part boosts to 3.60 GHz. The AMD part's base clock is 2.00 GHz; the Intel part's base clock is 0.10 GHz.