AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 dominates the comparative benchmark landscape, though the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 has no recorded individual benchmark scores in the database. The Intel processor holds an average benchmark score of 64,640, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs tracked. The AMD part sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of 0, which reflects the absence of recorded test data rather than an actual performance deficit.

Intel's multi-core results are substantial. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265 records 42,216 points. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score reaches 6,268, while Cinebench R15 multi-core lands at 4,255. These figures represent heavy multi-threaded workloads such as rendering, compilation, and scientific computation. The single-core results are equally telling: Cinebench R23 single-core at 5,960, Cinebench R20 single-core at 884, and Cinebench R15 single-core at 600. These are strong numbers for responsiveness in lightly threaded applications.

PassMark results reinforce the same pattern. The Core Ultra 7 265 scores 49,682 in PassMark multithread, 4,689 in PassMark single-thread, and 134,773 in integer math. Floating-point math reaches 172,776, and extended instructions hit 41,478. Data compression records 522,983, while data encryption manages 40,456. Prime number finding reaches 418, random string sorting scores 63,833, and physics simulation lands at 2,923.

The nearest rival comparison for the Intel chip shows a tight cluster. The AMD EPYC 4464P sits 0.3% below with an average score of 64,823. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is 0.3% above at 64,438. The AMD EPYC 7343 trails by 0.7% at 64,202, and the AMD EPYC 9124 leads by 0.7% at 65,104. The Core Ultra 7 265 therefore operates within a narrow band of server-class processors, which is notable for a desktop part. The database records zero head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD and Intel chips, and the win counts are zero for both sides.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 records an average benchmark score of 64,640, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 shows an average of 0, which reflects no recorded benchmark data in the database.

Q: How does the Intel chip compare with its closest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 sits within 0.7% of four nearby processors: the AMD EPYC 4464P is 0.3% lower, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is 0.3% higher, the AMD EPYC 7343 is 0.7% lower, and the AMD EPYC 9124 is 0.7% higher.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. Both support 20 threads, but Intel doubles the physical core count.

Q: Which chip has the higher clock speeds?

A: The Intel part has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The AMD part has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Intel leads in both metrics.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 does not.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses a 3 nm process, also from TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins decisively in every measured category because it is the only chip with recorded benchmark data. Multi-threaded productivity favors Intel: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 42,216, Cinebench R20 multi-core at 6,268, and Cinebench R15 multi-core at 4,255. PassMark multithread at 49,682 confirms the same advantage in parallel workloads. The 20-core count aligns with these results, providing a wide physical core base for simultaneous thread execution.

Single-threaded performance also favors Intel. Cinebench R23 single-core at 5,960, Cinebench R20 single-core at 884, and Cinebench R15 single-core at 600 indicate strong per-core execution. PassMark single-thread at 4,689 corroborates this. The higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz supports these results.

Specialized workloads further favor Intel. Floating-point math at 172,776 and extended instructions at 41,478 show strength in numerical and SIMD-heavy tasks. Data compression at 522,983 suggests efficient handling of archival and storage workloads. Data encryption at 40,456 reflects capable cryptographic throughput. Random string sorting at 63,833 and prime number finding at 418 round out a comprehensive lead.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 holds no recorded wins in the database. However, its specification sheet points to advantages in specific contexts. The 28 W TDP is far lower than Intel's 65 W, which matters for thermally constrained embedded designs. ECC memory support is present on the AMD chip and absent on the Intel chip, a meaningful differentiator for reliability-sensitive deployments. The Radeon 880M integrated graphics likely offers different rendering characteristics than Intel's Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU, though no benchmark data confirms this.

The AMD chip also targets the embedded mobile segment with an AMD Socket FP8, whereas the Intel chip is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851. The database percentile positions reflect this: Intel at the 93rd percentile versus AMD at the 50th percentile, though the AMD value stems from missing data rather than measured performance.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ sharply. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 provides 10 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 provides 20 cores and 20 threads. Intel doubles the physical cores while matching the thread count.

Clock speeds favor Intel. The AMD chip runs at 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The Intel chip runs at 2.40 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. Intel holds a 0.40 GHz base advantage and a 0.30 GHz boost advantage.

Thermal design power differs by more than double. The AMD part has a 28 W TDP. The Intel part has a 65 W TDP. This has direct implications for cooling requirements and system power budgets.

The socket and platform differ entirely. AMD uses Socket FP8, a mobile-oriented package. Intel uses Socket 1851, a desktop platform. These are not interchangeable.

Memory support diverges. The AMD chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Intel chip supports DDR5 only. The AMD chip supports ECC memory; the Intel chip does not. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD's 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe capabilities differ. The AMD chip provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Intel offers both a newer generation and more lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The AMD chip uses Radeon 880M. The Intel chip uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU.

Process nodes differ by one nanometer step. The AMD chip uses 4 nm. The Intel chip uses 3 nm. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Die size is similar. The AMD chip measures 233 mm². The Intel chip measures 243 mm². The Intel chip integrates 17,800 million transistors; the database does not list a transistor count for the AMD chip.

Cache organization differs substantially. The AMD chip provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of L3. The Intel chip provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Intel has larger per-core caches and nearly double the L3 capacity.

The Intel chip is part of the Core Ultra Series 2 with an Arrow Lake architecture and an "Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake)" generation label. The AMD chip uses the Gorgon Point codename with a "Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c)" generation label. The Intel chip has a part number of SRQCX and a launch MSRP of $394. The AMD chip has an unknown part number and no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 uses a hybrid Zen 5 / Zen 5c core design under the Gorgon Point codename. This combines full-size Zen 5 cores with compact Zen 5c cores, a strategy aimed at balancing performance and efficiency within a 28 W envelope. The 4 nm TSMC process supports this power-conscious approach. The 10-core, 20-thread configuration with 16 MB of L3 suggests a design optimized for embedded workloads where power density and thermal limits constrain performance.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake architecture under the Core Ultra Series 2 branding. It is built on a 3 nm TSMC process, a more advanced node than the AMD chip. The 20-core, 20-thread layout with 30 MB of shared L3 indicates a desktop-first design that prioritizes raw throughput over power efficiency. The 65 W TDP allows more aggressive sustained operation. The larger L1 and L2 caches per core support higher per-thread performance, which aligns with the recorded single-core benchmark results.

The transistor counts reflect the architectural differences. The Intel chip integrates 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die. The AMD chip has no recorded transistor count but uses a 233 mm² die. The similar die sizes with different node generations and core counts suggest distinct design priorities: Intel packs more cores and cache, while AMD focuses on lower power consumption and embedded features.

Memory architecture diverges as well. The AMD chip supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with LPDDR5X being a lower-power mobile memory standard. The Intel chip supports DDR5 only. ECC memory support on the AMD side indicates a reliability-focused design for embedded and industrial applications. The Intel chip lacks ECC support entirely.

PCIe architecture favors Intel with Gen 5 and 20 lanes versus AMD's Gen 4 and 16 lanes. This gives the Intel chip more headroom for high-bandwidth peripherals such as modern GPUs and NVMe storage. The AMD chip's narrower, older PCIe implementation is consistent with its embedded positioning.

The integrated graphics differ in design lineage. The AMD chip uses Radeon 880M, which pairs with the Zen 5 core architecture. The Intel chip uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU, which ties into the Arrow Lake platform. No benchmark data exists for either iGPU, so the performance relationship remains unmeasured.

The release timelines differ. The Intel chip launched on 2025-01-06. The AMD chip has a release date of 2026-02-28. The Intel chip has already accumulated benchmark data, while the AMD chip has none recorded, which explains the stark difference in database visibility.

The Verdict

The recorded data overwhelmingly favors the Intel Core Ultra 7 265. It holds a 93rd percentile ranking with an average benchmark score of 64,640, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded score. Every available benchmark metric, from Cinebench R23 multi-core at 42,216 to PassMark single-thread at 4,689, belongs to the Intel chip. The nearest rival comparison shows the Intel part trading places within a 0.7% band against server-class EPYC processors, which indicates strong absolute performance for a desktop chip.

The AMD chip's case rests on its specification sheet rather than measured results. The 28 W TDP is less than half of Intel's 65 W, making it suited for power-constrained embedded systems. ECC memory support adds reliability for data-integrity workloads. LPDDR5X support broadens memory options for mobile or compact designs. The 10-core, 20-thread configuration with Zen 5 / Zen 5c cores provides a capable foundation, though the database contains no numbers to quantify it.

The market segments differ completely. The AMD chip targets embedded mobile use cases with its FP8 socket and 28 W envelope. The Intel chip targets desktop use with its 1851 socket and 65 W envelope. A buyer choosing between them is not choosing between two similar products; they are choosing between two different device classes.

For users who need verified performance data, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the only chip with any recorded results. Its 20 cores, 5.30 GHz boost clock, 30 MB of L3, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth all point to a high-throughput desktop processor. The 93rd percentile ranking confirms its position among all tracked CPUs.

For users building power-sensitive embedded systems, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174 offers a lower TDP, ECC support, and LPDDR5X compatibility. These are meaningful advantages in that specific context, even without benchmark scores to quantify the performance trade-off. The 50th percentile ranking reflects missing data, not measured weakness.

The database currently provides no head-to-head benchmark entries between these two processors. The win counts are zero for both. Any direct performance comparison must rely on the Intel chip's recorded scores and the AMD chip's unmeasured specifications. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the only one of the two with evidence of performance in the database, and it uses that evidence well.