AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 vs Intel Core 5 120HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 or the Intel Core 5 120HL. Neither processor has an average benchmark score, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. The wins tally shows zero for both parts. This absence of measured data means any comparative performance assessment must rely strictly on architectural and specification analysis rather than empirical results.

Without recorded scores, the percentile placement for both CPUs sits at 50, indicating the database has not yet differentiated them against the broader field. The lack of nearest rivals further confirms that no comparative performance context exists in the current records. What the data does reveal are the structural differences: the AMD part carries 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel part has 12 cores and 16 threads. The core count advantage for Intel contrasts with the thread count advantage for AMD, suggesting different workload scaling characteristics.

Clock speeds show AMD with a 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, while Intel operates at 2.60 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. The AMD boost clock is 0.30 GHz higher, but the Intel base clock is 0.60 GHz higher. These figures indicate that AMD relies more heavily on boost behavior, while Intel maintains a higher sustained frequency floor. Power envelopes differ substantially: AMD is rated at 28W TDP, Intel at 45W TDP. The 17W gap implies thermal and efficiency tradeoffs that could influence sustained performance in constrained environments.

Architecture Differences

The manufacturing processes diverge sharply. AMD uses a 4 nm node fabricated by TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm node fabricated in-house. This process gap suggests significant differences in transistor density and power efficiency, though the database does not provide transistor counts for either part. The die size for AMD is recorded at 233 mm², while Intel's die size is not listed.

Architecturally, AMD employs a hybrid Zen 5 / Zen 5c design under the Gorgon Point codename. Intel uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: AMD's Zen 5c cores are optimized for density and efficiency in a heterogeneous arrangement, while Intel's Raptor Lake uses a monolithic approach. The generation fields confirm this: AMD lists "Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c)" and Intel lists "Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS)".

Cache hierarchies show notable differences. Both allocate 80 KB of L1 per core. However, L2 differs: AMD provides 1 MB per core, Intel provides 2 MB per core. The total L3 cache favors Intel at 18 MB shared, versus AMD at 16 MB. The larger per-core L2 on Intel could benefit workloads with high temporal locality, while AMD's L3 deficit is modest at 2 MB.

Memory support diverges considerably. AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5. The memory bus is dual-channel for both. AMD records a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while Intel's memory bandwidth is not listed. AMD also supports ECC memory, while Intel does not. This makes AMD the only option among the two for error-correcting memory configurations.

PCIe connectivity differs in lane count. AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The 8-lane difference could impact discrete GPU or NVMe expansion capacity. Integrated graphics also differ: AMD uses Radeon 880M, Intel uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. The database does not provide comparative graphics performance figures.

Socket compatibility is entirely separate: AMD uses Socket FP8, Intel uses Socket 1700. Release dates show Intel launched on 2024-04-07, while AMD's release is dated 2026-02-28. The production status for both is listed as Active.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 5 120HL has 12 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 has 10 cores. However, AMD has 20 threads versus Intel's 16, meaning AMD's 10 cores support simultaneous multithreading while Intel's 12 cores do not fully double the thread count.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD part is rated at 28W TDP, while the Intel part is rated at 45W TDP. This 17W difference indicates AMD targets lower power envelopes, potentially suiting fanless or battery-operated systems, while Intel's higher TDP suggests greater sustained power draw.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 5 120HL does not. This makes AMD the only option for workloads requiring error-correcting memory, such as certain server or reliability-focused embedded applications.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory types?

A: AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5. AMD's inclusion of LPDDR5X provides a low-power memory option not available on Intel. AMD also records a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while Intel's bandwidth is not listed in the database.

Q: What are the PCIe lane counts?

A: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). AMD offers double the CPU-attached PCIe lanes, which could support more expansion devices or higher-bandwidth configurations.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 120HL boosts to 4.70 GHz. AMD's boost clock is 0.30 GHz higher. However, Intel has a higher base clock at 2.60 GHz versus AMD's 2.00 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 | Intel Core 5 120HL |

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

| Cores | 10 | 12 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 28W | 45W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Gorgon Point | Raptor Lake-PS |

| Generation | Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) | Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 233 mm² | Not listed |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB | 18 MB (shared) |

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

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

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 8 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 880M | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-02-28 | 2024-04-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $279 |

| Part Number | unknown | SRPFR |

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two processors aimed at different market segments. AMD targets Mobile with a 28W TDP, 10 cores, 20 threads, ECC support, and LPDDR5X compatibility. Intel targets Desktop with a 45W TDP, 12 cores, 16 threads, DDR4 support, and a $279 launch MSRP.

The Intel part has the higher core count and base clock, plus larger L2 and L3 caches. The AMD part has the higher thread count, boost clock, memory bandwidth, PCIe lane count, and ECC support. Without benchmark scores, the database cannot determine which delivers superior performance in specific applications.

The process node difference (4 nm vs 10 nm) suggests AMD may achieve better efficiency per watt, but the lack of measured data prevents confirmation. The release dates indicate Intel is an older part (2024) while AMD is a newer design (2026), which could imply architectural maturity differences, though the database does not directly state this.

For memory-sensitive workloads, AMD's 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC capability are distinct advantages. For multi-core throughput, Intel's 12 cores could provide an edge, but AMD's 20 threads complicate that assessment. The PCIe lane difference (16 vs 8) could matter for systems requiring more expansion bandwidth.

The verdict from the data alone: AMD suits embedded mobile deployments requiring low power, ECC reliability, and high memory bandwidth. Intel suits desktop configurations requiring DDR4 compatibility, higher base clocks, and a lower launch MSRP of $279.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 wins on: Thread count (20 vs 16), boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 4.70 GHz), power efficiency (28W vs 45W), memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s recorded vs not listed), ECC memory support (yes vs no), PCIe lane count (16 vs 8), memory type flexibility (DDR5 and LPDDR5X vs DDR4 and DDR5), process node (4 nm vs 10 nm), and die size specification (233 mm² vs not listed).

Intel Core 5 120HL wins on: Core count (12 vs 10), base clock (2.60 GHz vs 2.00 GHz), L2 cache size (2 MB per core vs 1 MB per core), L3 cache size (18 MB shared vs 16 MB), memory support breadth (DDR4 and DDR5 vs DDR5 and LPDDR5X), and launch MSRP ($279 vs not listed).

The use-case split follows these advantages. AMD's profile fits embedded systems where power budgets are tight, ECC memory is required for data integrity, and the higher boost clock can handle burst workloads. The 16 PCIe lanes support more attached devices, and the mobile segment designation aligns with compact or battery-powered deployments.

Intel's profile fits desktop applications where the higher core count and base clock provide consistent throughput, the larger caches reduce memory access latency, and DDR4 compatibility allows use of existing memory infrastructure. The desktop market segment and socket 1700 compatibility suggest traditional desktop motherboard integration.

The data does not indicate which processor wins in raw performance, only where their specifications diverge. The empty benchmark fields leave performance ranking undetermined, so the selection should follow the specific requirements of the target system.