AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i vs Intel Core 7 253PQE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains a full suite of results for the Intel Core 7 253PQE, but the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has no recorded benchmark scores. This makes a direct score-by-score comparison impossible. However, the Intel part's results against its nearest rivals provide context for what the AMD part would need to match.

The Intel Core 7 253PQE delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 31390 and a single-core score of 4431. In Cinebench R20, it scores 13183 multi-core and 1861 single-core. The older Cinebench R15 run shows 3163 multi-core and 446 single-core. PassMark results include a multithread score of 41656, a single-thread score of 4389, integer math at 137795, floating point math at 105279, data compression at 487335, and data encryption at 25515. Extended instructions score 32390, find prime numbers scores 206, random string sorting scores 54222, and physics scores 2970.

The Intel part's average benchmark score is 55919, placing it at the 91st percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its closest rival is the Intel Core i9-14900HX with an average score of 56004, a difference of only 0.2 percent. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 scores 56273, which is 0.6 percent higher. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 scores 56306, 0.7 percent higher. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX scores 56555, 1.1 percent higher. These deltas are small, indicating the Intel part sits in a tightly contested performance band.

Since the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has no benchmarks in the database, its performance cannot be quantified relative to the Intel part. The data only allows for architectural comparison and feature analysis, not score-based head-to-head results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and use different manufacturing nodes. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i uses TSMC's 4 nm process, while the Intel Core 7 253PQE uses Intel's 10 nm process. This node difference has direct implications for power efficiency and thermal density, though the database does not provide transistor counts for either part.

The AMD part is built on the Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation, which the database lists as Zen 5 / Zen 5c. The Intel part uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 7 generation. Both processors are current, active production parts with the same release date of 2026-03-08.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part has 10 cores and 20 threads. This gives the Intel part a 2-core and 4-thread advantage in raw parallelism. Clock speeds also favor Intel: the AMD part runs at 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, while the Intel part runs at 3.50 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost. The Intel part's base clock is 75 percent higher, and its boost clock is 14 percent higher.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. Both use 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The AMD part uses 1 MB of L2 per core, while the Intel part uses 2 MB of L2 per core. The AMD part has 8 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel part has 33 MB of shared L3. The Intel part's L3 cache is more than four times larger. The database does not list total L3 for the AMD part, but the per-core L2 difference and the large L3 gap indicate a significant cache capacity advantage for Intel.

Memory support also differs. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5. Both are dual-channel with identical memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The AMD part's inclusion of LPDDR5X makes it suitable for low-power, integrated memory configurations, while the Intel part's DDR4 support allows for lower-cost memory in desktop builds.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part's Gen 5 interface provides twice the per-lane bandwidth, which matters for high-throughput storage and expansion cards.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD part uses the Radeon 880M, while the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 770. The database does not provide performance scores for either iGPU, so the comparison is qualitative. The Radeon 880M is a newer architecture, but without benchmark data, no performance claim can be made.

The Intel part has a TDP of 125 watts, while the AMD part has a TDP of 28 watts. This is a 97-watt difference. The AMD part is clearly designed for low-power, embedded or mobile use cases, while the Intel part is a desktop-class processor with a much higher thermal envelope.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, a mobile-oriented socket, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. Neither is cross-compatible. The Intel part has a known part number (SA4QA), while the AMD part's part number is listed as unknown. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 253PQE wins in every scenario where raw multi-core throughput, high clock speeds, and large cache capacity matter. Its 10 cores and 20 threads, combined with a 5.70 GHz boost clock and 33 MB of shared L3 cache, position it for compute-heavy workloads such as video rendering, 3D modeling, scientific simulations, and compilation tasks. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 31390 and PassMark multithread score of 41656 confirm strong parallel performance. The single-core score of 4431 in Cinebench R23 and 4389 in PassMark single-thread indicate that lightly threaded applications also benefit from the high boost clock.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i wins in scenarios where power consumption and thermal output are primary constraints. Its 28-watt TDP is less than a quarter of the Intel part's 125-watt TDP. The 4 nm TSMC process and Zen 5 / Zen 5c architecture indicate a design focused on efficiency. The support for LPDDR5X memory allows for compact, integrated memory layouts that are common in embedded systems. The AMD Socket FP8 is a mobile socket, which means the processor can fit into thin, low-power devices where a desktop Socket 1700 part would be physically and thermally impossible.

For embedded, battery-powered, or passively cooled systems, the AMD part is the only realistic choice in this comparison. For desktop systems with adequate cooling and power delivery, the Intel part offers significantly more compute capacity.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE has 10 cores and 20 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The AMD part runs at 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The Intel part runs at 3.50 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: Both use 80 KB of L1 per core. The AMD part uses 1 MB of L2 per core and has 8 MB of L3. The Intel part uses 2 MB of L2 per core and has 33 MB of shared L3.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i and the Intel Core 7 253PQE support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types are supported?

A: The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5. Both are dual-channel with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What PCIe generations do they use?

A: The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD part has a TDP of 28 watts. The Intel part has a TDP of 125 watts.

Q: Does the database have benchmark scores for the AMD part?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i. The Intel Core 7 253PQE has a full suite of Cinebench and PassMark scores.

Q: What is the Intel part's launch MSRP?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE has a launch MSRP of $409.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields.

• Cores: AMD has 8, Intel has 10.
• Threads: AMD has 16, Intel has 20.
• Base clock: AMD is 2.00 GHz, Intel is 3.50 GHz.
• Boost clock: AMD is 5.00 GHz, Intel is 5.70 GHz.
• TDP: AMD is 28 watts, Intel is 125 watts.
• Socket: AMD uses AMD Socket FP8, Intel uses Intel Socket 1700.
• Codename: AMD is Gorgon Point, Intel is Bartlett Lake.
• Generation: AMD is Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c), Intel is Core 7 (Bartlett Lake).
• Process node: AMD is 4 nm (TSMC), Intel is 10 nm (Intel).
• Foundry: AMD is TSMC, Intel is Intel.
• L2 cache: AMD is 1 MB per core, Intel is 2 MB per core.
• L3 cache: AMD is 8 MB, Intel is 33 MB shared.
• Memory support: AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5.
• PCIe: AMD is Gen 4, 16 lanes, Intel is Gen 5, 16 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: AMD uses Radeon 880M, Intel uses UHD Graphics 770.
• Market segment: AMD is Mobile, Intel is Desktop.
• Part number: AMD is unknown, Intel is SA4QA.
• Launch MSRP: AMD has none listed, Intel is $409.

The die size for the AMD part is listed as 233 mm², while the Intel part has no die size in the database. The AMD part's release date is the same as the Intel part's, both 2026-03-08. Both processors have locked multipliers and are currently in active production.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. The Intel Core 7 253PQE is a high-performance desktop processor with a 91st percentile ranking, a 125-watt TDP, 10 cores, 20 threads, and a 5.70 GHz boost clock. Its benchmark scores are strong across the board, and its nearest rivals are all within 1.1 percent of its average score. It is suited for compute-heavy desktop workloads.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i is a low-power mobile processor with a 28-watt TDP, 8 cores, 16 threads, and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. It has no benchmark scores in the database, so its performance cannot be verified. Its strengths lie in power efficiency, LPDDR5X memory support, and its compact FP8 socket.

The choice between them depends on the use case. For a desktop system where power and cooling are available, the Intel part offers more cores, higher clocks, more cache, PCIe Gen 5, and a documented performance record. For an embedded or mobile system where power draw is critical, the AMD part uses less than a quarter of the Intel part's TDP and supports lower-power memory. The Intel part's launch MSRP of $409 is the only price data available. The AMD part has no listed MSRP.

The database does not contain enough information to declare a performance winner, since the AMD part lacks benchmark results. What the data does show is that the two processors occupy different market segments and are not direct substitutes for each other.