AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 vs Intel Core 5 211E Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for this comparison is asymmetric. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 has no individual benchmark entries in the database, while the Intel Core 5 211E has a complete set of Cinebench and PassMark results. Consequently, the win split is not a matter of one processor outscoring the other in specific tests; rather, the Intel part is the only one with measurable performance data, and the AMD part is defined entirely by its architectural specifications and its position in the overall percentile distribution.

The Intel Core 5 211E delivers its strongest results in multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20,389 points places it well above the single-core result of 2,878 points, indicating that the 10-core, 16-thread configuration scales effectively across parallel tasks. The Cinebench R20 multicore result of 8,563 and R15 multicore result of 2,055 follow the same pattern. In PassMark, the multithread score of 23,833 is roughly six times the physics score of 702, which shows that the processor allocates resources better in threaded compute than in physics simulation, a workload that often depends on single-core efficiency and memory latency.

In single-threaded applications, the Intel part records a PassMark single-thread score of 4,006 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,878. These figures are respectable for a 65 W desktop part, but they do not dominate the way the multicore numbers do. The data compression score of 346,757 and integer math score of 88,117 suggest that the processor handles data-heavy tasks well, while the extended instructions score of 21,592 and floating-point math score of 66,402 show moderate strength in vectorized and FP workloads. The find prime numbers score of 43 is the weakest recorded metric, which typically indicates that the processor is not optimized for this particular algorithmic pattern.

For the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174, the database shows no benchmark entries. The only comparative anchor is its percentile versus all CPUs of 50, which places it at the median of the database population. The Intel part sits at the 86th percentile, meaning that in the overall distribution of recorded processors, the Intel Core 5 211E outperforms a substantially larger share of the field. The AMD part, by contrast, is positioned exactly at the middle of the distribution. This percentile gap is the most direct quantitative comparison available between the two, since no head-to-head benchmark entries exist.

The AMD part does hold structural advantages that could matter in specific deployment contexts. Its 4 nm process node and 233 mm² die size indicate a denser, more modern manufacturing approach than the Intel part's 10 nm node and 257 mm² die. The AMD processor supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, which is higher than the Intel part's 76.8 GB/s. The AMD chip also integrates Radeon 880M graphics, while the Intel chip uses UHD Graphics 730. These differences suggest that the AMD part is positioned for mobile or embedded systems where power efficiency and integrated graphics capability take priority, while the Intel part is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP and PCIe Gen 5 support.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but conditional choice. For any workload where measured performance is the deciding factor, the Intel Core 5 211E is the only option with recorded benchmark results, and its 86th percentile placement confirms that it performs well relative to the broader database. Its nearest rivals show very tight margins: the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 sits 0.1% behind, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 sits 0.2% behind, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 sits 0.2% ahead, and the Intel Core i9-14901E sits 0.2% ahead. These deltas are small, but they establish that the Intel Core 5 211E is competitive within a narrow band of similarly scoring processors.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174, with no benchmark scores and a 50th percentile placement, cannot be recommended on the basis of measured performance. Its case rests entirely on specifications. It offers 10 cores and 20 threads versus the Intel part's 10 cores and 16 threads, which gives it a potential advantage in heavily threaded scenarios, but there is no recorded data to confirm this. Its 5.00 GHz boost clock is slightly higher than the Intel part's 4.90 GHz, and its 28 W TDP is much lower than the Intel part's 65 W, making it the more power-conscious design. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, as does the Intel part, and both use dual-channel memory buses.

For a system builder prioritizing measured application performance, the Intel Core 5 211E is the defensible choice. For an embedded or mobile design where the 28 W TDP, LPDDR5X support, and Radeon 880M integrated graphics are decisive, the AMD part has a structural rationale, but the database cannot verify its actual speed. The Intel part's launch MSRP is $221, which is recorded in the database. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array is empty. There are no paired test results comparing the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 directly against the Intel Core 5 211E. This means every performance comparison must be inferred from the Intel part's individual scores and the AMD part's percentile placement.

The Intel Core 5 211E's strongest recorded result is the PassMark data compression score of 346,757, a figure that indicates strong throughput in compression workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20,389 and PassMark multithread score of 23,833 reinforce the multi-threaded strength. The single-core results are comparatively modest: Cinebench R23 single-core of 2,878 and PassMark single-thread of 4,006. The data encryption score of 17,938 and random string sorting score of 34,308 round out the processor's profile as a balanced desktop chip with a lean toward parallel compute.

The AMD part's only quantitative benchmark-adjacent metric is its 50th percentile versus all CPUs. This means that in the database's distribution of all recorded processors, the AMD part is expected to outperform roughly half of them. The Intel part, at the 86th percentile, is expected to outperform 86% of them. The gap of 36 percentile points is the single largest comparative signal in this dataset, and it strongly favors the Intel part in overall performance terms.

The nearest rival data for the Intel Core 5 211E provides additional context. Its average benchmark score of 37,829 is virtually identical to the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 at 37,804, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 at 37,762, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37,904, and the Intel Core i9-14901E at 37,911. The largest delta among these rivals is 0.2%, which means the Intel Core 5 211E sits in an extremely tight performance cluster. This is notable because the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Intel Core i9-14901E both sit slightly ahead, while the two AMD Ryzen AI Embedded and PRO parts sit slightly behind. The margins are small enough to be within normal run-to-run variance, so the Intel part is effectively tied with all four rivals.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174. The Intel Core 5 211E, by contrast, has a full suite of Cinebench and PassMark results.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall database percentile?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 is at the 50th percentile versus all CPUs, while the Intel Core 5 211E is at the 86th percentile. This indicates that the Intel part outperforms a much larger share of the database population.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: Both have 10 cores. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 has 20 threads, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 16 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 boosts to 5.00 GHz, and the Intel Core 5 211E boosts to 4.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Both processors support ECC memory.

Q: What is the Intel Core 5 211E's average benchmark score and how close are its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score is 37,829. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 at 37,804 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 at 37,762 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37,904 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i9-14901E at 37,911 (0.2% ahead).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing and design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 uses a 4 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 233 mm². Its codename is Gorgon Point, and it belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation built on Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The Intel Core 5 211E uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 257 mm². Its codename is Bartlett Lake, and it belongs to the Core 5 generation.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The AMD part uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 16 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part also uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core but has 2 MB of L2 cache per core and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L2 and L3 allocations on the Intel part may benefit workloads with repeated data access patterns, though no benchmark data exists for the AMD part to confirm whether this translates into a real advantage.

Memory support also differs. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. The AMD part's higher bandwidth and LPDDR5X support make it more suitable for compact or mobile designs, while the Intel part's DDR4 compatibility offers flexibility for existing desktop platforms.

PCIe connectivity separates the two as well. The AMD part provides PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The newer PCIe standard on the Intel part offers higher bandwidth for attached devices, though the AMD part's lower-power design may not need that level of I/O throughput.

Integrated graphics differ in class. The AMD part uses Radeon 880M, while the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 730. The Radeon 880M is generally positioned as a more capable iGPU, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks for either part.

Power and platform targets are the final major distinction. The AMD part has a 28 W TDP and uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part has a 65 W TDP and uses Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part is marked as a mobile segment product, while the Intel part is a desktop product. The AMD part's release date is recorded as 2026-02-28, and the Intel part's release date is recorded as 2025-01-12. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $221; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers, and both are marked as active in production.