AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i vs Intel Core i5-14490F Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents an asymmetric comparison. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has no benchmark entries in the database, yielding zero recorded wins across all tested workloads. The Intel Core i5-14490F holds every measured win, with 17 benchmark results spanning Cinebench and Passmark suites.

The use-case split follows from this data distribution. For multi-threaded productivity workloads, the Intel part dominates every recorded metric. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a score of 23000, while the AMD part has no comparable entry. The Passmark multi-thread score of 28662 further cements the Intel chip for parallel processing tasks. Single-thread performance similarly favors Intel, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 3247 and Passmark single-thread at 3873.

The AMD processor's strengths cannot be quantified from the database because no measurements exist for it. However, its specifications indicate a different design intent. The 28 TDP, mobile market segment, and integrated Radeon 880M graphics point toward embedded and low-power applications. The Intel part, with a 65 TDP and desktop segment classification, targets conventional desktop workloads.

The data shows a clear division: Intel wins every measured compute benchmark, while AMD's positioning rests on platform characteristics rather than recorded performance scores. The percentile ranking reinforces this, with Intel at 86 versus AMD at 50 among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their underlying designs. AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel employs a 10 nm node from its own foundry. The AMD die measures 233 mm², slightly larger than Intel's 215 mm².

Core configurations differ in count and organization. AMD provides 8 cores and 16 threads, built on the Gorgon Point codename with a Zen 5 / Zen 5c hybrid arrangement. Intel offers 10 cores and 16 threads on the Raptor Lake-R architecture, part of the Core 14th Gen series. Both parts boost to 5.00 GHz, but their base clocks differ: AMD runs at 2.00 GHz, Intel at 2.50 GHz.

Cache hierarchies show fundamental differences. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. Intel matches the 80 KB L1 per core but provides 1.25 MB of L2 per core and a substantially larger 24 MB shared L3. The L3 difference alone gives Intel three times the last-level cache.

Memory support diverges as well. AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X across a dual-channel bus, with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC enabled. Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on dual-channel memory but lacks ECC, and its bandwidth figure is not recorded. PCIe connectivity differs by generation: AMD uses Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, Intel uses Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics separate the two clearly. AMD includes a Radeon 880M GPU, making it a complete system-on-chip solution. Intel lists no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output. Socket compatibility also differs, with AMD on FP8 and Intel on Socket 1700.

Release timing shows Intel shipped first, with a release date of 2023-12-31. AMD followed with a 2026-03-08 release. Both remain in active production. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these two processors. The wins tally stands at 0 for AMD and 0 for Intel in that specific category. However, the Intel part's standalone benchmark suite provides the only quantitative performance data available.

Cinebench results for Intel show strong scaling from R15 to R23. The R15 multi-core score is 2318, rising to 9660 in R20 and 23000 in R23. Single-core scores progress from 327 in R15 to 1363 in R20 and 3247 in R23. These figures demonstrate consistent performance growth across test revisions, but without AMD equivalents, no relative comparison can be drawn.

Passmark workloads reveal varied strengths. The highest recorded Intel score is in data compression at 340026, followed by integer math at 87844 and floating point math at 66558. Random string sorting reaches 35608, and extended instructions score 21731. Data encryption records 18225, while find prime numbers lags at 122. The single-thread score of 3873 appears twice in the database, once as passmark_single_thread and once as passmark_singlethread, confirming consistency.

The Intel part's average benchmark score is 38149, placing it at the 86th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T with an average score of 38194, a delta of -0.1 percent, meaning the Ultra 5 is marginally ahead. The Intel Core i5-13600KF scores 38103, a 0.1 percent delta behind. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 records 38221, a 0.2 percent delta ahead, and the Intel Core i5-13600HX posts 38261, a 0.3 percent delta ahead. These narrow deltas, all within 0.3 percent, place the i5-14490F in a tight competitive cluster.

For the AMD P164i, the percentile of 50 and an average benchmark score of 0 reflect the absence of recorded data. No nearest rivals are listed for it, and no head-to-head results exist.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-14490F has 10 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has 8 cores. Both support 16 threads.

Q: What is the cache difference between the two?

A: Intel provides 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while AMD provides 8 MB. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core, but Intel has 1.25 MB of L2 per core versus AMD's 1 MB.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD P164i supports ECC memory, while the Intel i5-14490F does not.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The AMD P164i includes a Radeon 880M integrated GPU. The Intel i5-14490F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry.

Q: How does the Intel part compare to its closest rivals?

A: The i5-14490F has an average benchmark score of 38149. The nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T, is 0.1 percent ahead at 38194. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is 0.2 percent ahead at 38221, and the Intel Core i5-13600HX is 0.3 percent ahead at 38261. The Intel Core i5-13600KF trails by 0.1 percent at 38103.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward selection based on recorded performance. The Intel Core i5-14490F delivers measurable results across 17 benchmarks, with an average score of 38149 and an 86th percentile ranking. Its multi-core performance is substantial, with a Cinebench R23 score of 23000 and a Passmark multi-thread score of 28662.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has no benchmark scores in the database. Its position rests entirely on specification advantages: ECC memory support, integrated Radeon 880M graphics, a smaller 4 nm process node, and a lower 28 TDP. These features suit embedded and mobile deployments where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter more than peak compute throughput.

For desktop compute workloads, the Intel part is the only option with empirical support. Its 10 cores, 24 MB of L3 cache, and Gen 5 PCIe lanes provide a conventional high-performance desktop profile. The lack of integrated graphics means a discrete GPU is required, but the CPU-side performance is well documented.

For embedded and low-power applications, the AMD part offers a different value proposition. The 28 TDP, LPDDR5X memory support, ECC capability, and integrated graphics make it a self-contained solution. The 4 nm process and 5.00 GHz boost clock indicate capable performance, but no measurements confirm this.

The percentile gap is decisive: Intel at 86 versus AMD at 50. This means Intel outperforms 86 percent of all CPUs in the database, while AMD sits at the median with no recorded scores to validate its position. Users requiring verified compute performance should select the Intel processor. Users prioritizing integrated graphics, ECC memory, and lower power consumption should consider the AMD part, with the caveat that its performance remains unquantified in the database.