AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i vs Intel Core i5-14400F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i does not include any benchmark scores, average scores, or percentile rankings beyond a 50th percentile placement among all CPUs. The Intel Core i5-14400F, by contrast, carries a full suite of 19 benchmark results across Cinebench, Geekbench, and Passmark workloads. The database shows the Intel part at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32,279. That places it 33 percentile points above the AMD part in the overall distribution.

The Intel Core i5-14400F delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21,645 and a single-core score of 3,055. In Cinebench R20, it records 9,090 multi-core and 1,283 single-core, while Cinebench R15 shows 2,181 multi-core and 307 single-core. Geekbench results sit at 11,268 multi-core and 2,058 single-core. Passmark results include 25,470 in multithread, 3,701 in single-thread, 81,524 in integer math, 61,319 in floating-point math, 19,937 in extended instructions, 31,5521 in data compression, 16,949 in data encryption, 86 in find prime numbers, 1,523 in physics, and 32,680 in random string sorting.

Since the AMD part has no recorded benchmark output, the head-to-head comparison is one-sided. The Intel chip shows its largest relative strengths in Cinebench R23 multi-core and Passmark multithread, both of which reflect the 10-core, 16-thread configuration. The single-core results, such as 3,055 in Cinebench R23 and 3,701 in Passmark single-thread, indicate a competitive per-thread performance profile for a desktop part in this class. The AMD part cannot be directly scored against these numbers from the current database, as its benchmark array is empty.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-14400F provide context for its average score. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U averages 32,233, a 0.1% delta. The Intel Core i9-11900 averages 32,226, a 0.2% delta. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS averages 32,354, a -0.2% delta. The Intel Core i7-12800H averages 32,121, a 0.5% delta. These deltas show the i5-14400F sitting within half a percent of four established mid-range and upper-mid-range parts, confirming that its aggregate performance is well within a tight cluster rather than an outlier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and manufacturing nodes. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i uses the Gorgon Point codename and a Ryzen AI Embedded generation built on Zen 5 / Zen 5c cores. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 233 mm². The Intel Core i5-14400F belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, uses Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-R codename, and is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel with a die size of 215 mm². The node difference is substantial: the AMD part uses a 4 nm process while the Intel part uses 10 nm, which affects density and power characteristics.

Core counts differ in structure. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part has 10 cores and 16 threads. Both expose 16 threads to the operating system, but the Intel part does so with two additional physical cores. The Intel configuration uses a hybrid architecture typical of Raptor Lake, though the database does not break down performance vs. efficiency core counts. The AMD part uses a Zen 5 / Zen 5c combination, which implies a mix of full-performance and compact cores, though the database does not specify the split.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip therefore carries substantially more last-level cache, 20 MB shared vs. 8 MB, a 12 MB difference that can benefit workloads with larger working sets. The AMD part has a higher per-core L2 on paper at 1.25 MB per core, but the smaller L3 pool limits total cache capacity.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The AMD part lists a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part lists a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The AMD chip has the higher boost ceiling by 300 MHz, while the Intel chip has a higher base clock by 500 MHz. Thermal design power differs as well: the AMD part is rated at 28 W, while the Intel part is rated at 65 W. That is a 37 W gap and reflects the AMD part's embedded mobile positioning versus the Intel part's desktop socket.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with dual-channel memory and a measured memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but the database does not list a memory bandwidth figure for it. The AMD part's support for LPDDR5X indicates a low-power, embedded-oriented design. The Intel part's DDR4 support gives it broader compatibility with existing desktop platforms.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. That gives the Intel chip a newer PCIe generation for storage and discrete graphics, while the AMD part relies on the previous generation. Integrated graphics also differ: the AMD part includes a Radeon 880M iGPU, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. That makes the AMD part self-contained for display output, while the Intel part requires a discrete GPU.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, a mobile and embedded socket. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The AMD part has a release date of 2026-03-08, while the Intel part has a release date of 2024-01-07. The AMD part is newer by roughly two years. Both parts are listed as Active in production status. The Intel part has a part number of SRN3RSRN47, while the AMD part has an unknown part number. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-14400F wins in measurable performance categories because it is the only part in this comparison with recorded benchmark data. Its 10 cores and 16 threads deliver a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21,645, which is the strongest multi-threaded result in its recorded suite. The Passmark multithread score of 25,470 reinforces that position. For single-thread work, the Intel chip records 3,055 in Cinebench R23 and 3,701 in Passmark single-thread, both strong results for a locked desktop processor. The nearest rival data places it within 0.5% of the Intel Core i7-12800H and within 0.2% of the Intel Core i9-11900, meaning its aggregate performance is essentially at parity with those older or mobile-class parts.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i wins in platform efficiency and integration. Its 28 W TDP is less than half of the Intel part's 65 W TDP, which indicates a much lower power envelope for embedded or mobile deployments. The integrated Radeon 880M GPU provides graphics capability without a discrete card, something the Intel part cannot do. The LPDDR5X memory support and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth point to a compact, power-conscious design. The 5.00 GHz boost clock is the highest boost frequency between the two parts, which could give it an advantage in lightly threaded workloads if the power budget allows sustained boosting. The 4 nm process node also suggests higher transistor density and better efficiency per watt compared to the Intel part's 10 nm node.

For use-case separation, the Intel part suits desktop workloads where sustained multi-core performance, large L3 cache, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity matter. The AMD part suits embedded systems where power draw, integrated graphics, and LPDDR5X memory are priorities. The database does not provide benchmark scores for the AMD part, so any performance advantage for it must be inferred from specifications rather than measured results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F has 10 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has 8 cores. Both have 16 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32,279 and sits at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has no recorded average benchmark score and sits at the 50th percentile.

Q: Does the AMD processor include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i includes a Radeon 880M integrated GPU. The Intel Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core i5-14400F has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F has 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has 8 MB of L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has the lower thermal design power?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has a TDP of 28 W. The Intel Core i5-14400F has a TDP of 65 W.

The Verdict

The recorded data gives the Intel Core i5-14400F a clear performance profile. Its 83rd percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 32,279 place it among capable desktop processors, with nearest rivals within a 0.5% delta. The 20 MB of shared L3 cache, PCIe Gen 5 support, and 10-core configuration make it a strong choice for desktop systems where measured throughput is the priority. The launch MSRP of $196 for the Intel part is the only pricing data available in the database.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has no benchmark scores in the database, so its performance cannot be verified from measurements. Its 50th percentile ranking is based on the aggregate CPU distribution, not on recorded results. What the specifications do show is a low-power embedded processor with a 28 W TDP, integrated Radeon 880M graphics, LPDDR5X memory support, and an 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. The 4 nm process and 5.00 GHz boost clock indicate a modern, efficient design.

The choice between them depends on the platform. For a desktop system requiring proven benchmark results, the Intel Core i5-14400F is the only option with measured data. For an embedded or mobile application where power consumption, integrated graphics, and compact memory support matter more than raw scores, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i offers a specification profile that the Intel part cannot match. The Intel part is for users who need validated performance. The AMD part is for systems where efficiency and integration take precedence.