AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for both processors shows no head-to-head benchmark entries, and neither part has an average benchmark score or nearest rival data stored in the database. This means the comparison must rely entirely on architecture, cache, memory, and platform specifications rather than measured performance deltas. Both CPUs sit at the 50th percentile of all CPUs in the database, which indicates they are positioned in the midrange of the recorded performance distribution, but without sample scores, the percentile is a placeholder rather than a measured result.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i carries 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Processor 300 carries 2 cores and 4 threads. The core count difference is 6 cores and 12 threads in favor of AMD. In multithreaded workloads, the AMD part has a 4x thread advantage, which typically translates into substantially higher parallel throughput. The Intel Processor 300 runs a base clock of 3.90 GHz, which is 1.90 GHz higher than the AMD part's 2.00 GHz base clock. However, the AMD part can boost to 5.00 GHz, which is a maximum frequency that the Intel part cannot reach because its boost clock field is not populated in the database. The Intel Processor 300 is a fixed-clock design in the recorded data, with no boost capability listed.

Single-thread performance is difficult to project from this data alone. The Intel part's higher base frequency suggests strong per-core responsiveness at stock settings, while the AMD part's 5.00 GHz boost ceiling gives it a theoretical peak advantage for lightly threaded bursts. The AMD part's 2.00 GHz base clock is notably low, likely reflecting a power-optimized mobile design that relies on boost behavior for performance. The Intel part's 3.90 GHz base clock is typical of a desktop part that maintains high frequency under sustained loads without a boost mechanism recorded.

The Intel Processor 300 has a 46 W TDP, which is 18 W higher than the AMD part's 28 W TDP. This indicates that the Intel part draws more power at its rated configuration, while the AMD part operates in a more efficient power envelope. For tasks that scale with core count, the AMD part's 8 cores and 16 threads would be expected to dominate the Intel part's 2 cores and 4 threads. For tasks that depend on raw clock speed per core, the Intel part's 3.90 GHz base clock gives it an advantage in the recorded specifications, but the AMD part's 5.00 GHz boost clock could close that gap when thermals and power allow.

The absence of recorded benchmark scores means no exact performance delta can be cited. The database shows zero wins for either side in head-to-head entries, and both parts have an average benchmark score of zero. This is not a reflection of capability but rather a gap in the measurement data. The analysis that follows is therefore based on architectural and specification differences, not measured performance numbers.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i is built on a 4 nm TSMC process node, while the Intel Processor 300 uses a 10 nm Intel process node. The smaller process node gives the AMD part a manufacturing advantage in transistor density and power efficiency, which aligns with its 28 W TDP. The AMD part uses a Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation, which is based on Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. This is a hybrid core design, combining full Zen 5 cores with dense Zen 5c cores. The Intel Processor 300 uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-S codename, which is a desktop design based on Raptor Cove performance cores and Gracemont efficiency cores in its broader family, though the recorded data lists it as Intel Processor with Raptor Lake generation.

The AMD part has 8 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel part has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's L3 cache is 2 MB larger. For L2 cache, the AMD part has 1 MB per core, while the Intel part has 1.25 MB per core. With 8 cores, the AMD part has a total L2 capacity of 8 MB across all cores, while the Intel part with 2 cores has 2.5 MB total L2. The AMD part's per-core L1 cache is 80 KB, matching the Intel part's 80 KB per core. The Intel part's L2 cache per core is 0.25 MB larger, which helps its two cores hold more working data locally, but the AMD part's total cache capacity across all cores is higher.

Memory support differs significantly. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. The AMD part's LPDDR5X support is notable for low-power mobile and embedded designs, allowing high bandwidth with lower power consumption. The Intel part's DDR4 support gives it compatibility with older, more widely available desktop memory, which is typical for a Socket 1700 desktop platform.

ECC memory is supported on the AMD part, while the Intel part does not support ECC memory according to the recorded data. This makes the AMD part suitable for embedded and workstation scenarios where data integrity is critical. The Intel part, without ECC support, is aimed at mainstream desktop use.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD part uses a Radeon 880M integrated GPU, while the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 710. The Radeon 880M is a modern integrated GPU based on AMD's RDNA architecture, designed for mobile and embedded parts with higher graphical throughput. The UHD Graphics 710 is a basic Intel iGPU intended for display output and light media acceleration. No benchmark scores for either iGPU are recorded, so any performance comparison is qualitative.

The platforms are incompatible. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, a mobile embedded socket, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The AMD part is classified as a Mobile market segment part, while the Intel part is classified as Desktop. 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 in the recorded timeline.

PCIe support differs. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part has the newer PCIe generation, offering double the bandwidth per lane compared to Gen 4. The AMD part's Gen 4 support is still capable for most embedded and mobile workloads, but the Intel part's Gen 5 support is a clear specification advantage for high-throughput peripherals like NVMe storage and discrete GPUs.

The die sizes also differ. The AMD part has a die size of 233 mm², while the Intel part has a die size of 163 mm². The AMD die is 70 mm² larger, which is expected given the higher core count and larger integrated GPU. The Intel part's smaller die reflects its lower core count and simpler iGPU.

The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $82. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i is the stronger choice for multithreaded and embedded workloads. Its 8 cores and 16 threads give it a 4x thread advantage over the Intel Processor 300's 2 cores and 4 threads. The 28 W TDP is 18 W lower than the Intel part's 46 W TDP, which means the AMD part delivers more cores and threads within a lower power envelope. The 4 nm TSMC process node supports this efficiency. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, which is critical for embedded, server, and reliability-focused applications. The Radeon 880M integrated GPU is a more capable graphics solution than the UHD Graphics 710. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is recorded for the AMD part, while the Intel part has no memory bandwidth figure in the database. The AMD part's 5.00 GHz boost clock gives it a high peak frequency despite the low 2.00 GHz base clock.

The Intel Processor 300 is the better choice for users on the Intel Socket 1700 desktop platform who need a low-cost, fixed-clock processor. Its 3.90 GHz base clock is high and consistent, which suits lightly threaded desktop tasks. It supports DDR4 memory, which is cheaper and more widely available than DDR5. Its PCIe Gen 5 support with 16 lanes is a genuine advantage over the AMD part's PCIe Gen 4. The 6 MB of shared L3 cache is adequate for a dual-core part. The Intel part's 163 mm² die size is smaller, and its release date is earlier, meaning it has been on the market longer. The $82 launch MSRP is the only recorded price data, but the database does not compare cost effectiveness.

For users who need maximum parallel throughput, lower power consumption, ECC support, and a stronger integrated GPU, the AMD part is the clear choice from the recorded specifications. For users who need a desktop part with PCIe Gen 5, DDR4 compatibility, and a high fixed base clock, the Intel part fits that role. The two parts target different sockets, market segments, and use cases, so the choice is defined by platform and workload requirements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i | Intel Processor 300 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 8 | 2 |

| Threads | 16 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | Not recorded |

| TDP | 28 W | 46 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Gorgon Point | Raptor Lake-S |

| Generation | Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) | Intel Processor (Raptor Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 233 mm² | 163 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 1.25 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB | 6 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 880M | UHD Graphics 710 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $82 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | unknown | SRN3J |

FAQ

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher maximum clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz, and no boost clock is recorded in the database.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i supports ECC memory. The Intel Processor 300 does not support ECC memory according to the recorded data.

Q: What type of memory does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164i has a TDP of 28 W. The Intel Processor 300 has a TDP of 46 W, which is 18 W higher.

Q: Which processor has a newer PCIe generation?

A: The Intel Processor 300 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.