AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i compare to the Intel Core 5 315 in core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. This gives the AMD processor a significant advantage in multi-threaded workloads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core 5 315 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The AMD part is higher in both metrics.

Q: Which processor has more cache available?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 5 315 does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i uses a dual-channel memory bus and delivers 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 315 uses a single-channel memory bus and delivers 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the integrated graphics options on each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i uses Radeon 880M integrated graphics. The Intel Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i and Intel Core 5 315 differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD part uses 10 cores with 20 threads, while the Intel part uses 6 cores with 6 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.00 GHz versus 4.40 GHz, both favoring AMD.

The process nodes differ: AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 3 nm process from its own foundry. The AMD chip has a die size of 233 mm², while the Intel chip has no recorded die size. Cache layouts are completely different. AMD uses 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB L3. Intel uses 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs in channel configuration and bandwidth. AMD uses dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s, while Intel uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the AMD processor but not on the Intel processor. PCIe lane counts differ: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes. Sockets are different as well, with AMD using AMD Socket FP8 and Intel using Intel BGA 1516.

The TDP ratings differ: AMD is rated at 28 watts, while Intel is rated at 15 watts. Release dates are also different, with AMD releasing on 2026-02-28 and Intel on 2026-04-15. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $340, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are mobile market segment parts, both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split between the two processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i is the stronger multi-threaded performer based on its 10 cores, 20 threads, higher clocks, larger L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and ECC support. It belongs in systems where parallel throughput, memory bandwidth, and data integrity matter more than power draw.

The Intel Core 5 315 occupies a different position. It uses a 3 nm process, has a lower TDP of 15 watts, and carries a launch MSRP of $340. Its benchmark profile places it at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18188. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18189 (0% delta), Intel Core i7-9700 at 18180 (0% delta), Intel Core i7-1365U at 18177 (0.1% delta), and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 18176 (0.1% delta). These numbers indicate the Intel part sits in a well-populated performance tier.

For workloads that rely on single-thread speed, the Intel part holds its own. For workloads that scale across many threads, the AMD part has the structural advantage. The choice depends on whether the user prioritizes multi-core throughput or lower power consumption. The AMD part is the more capable compute engine on paper; the Intel part is the more power-efficient option with a newer process node.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data between these two specific processors is empty, so the comparison must rely on the recorded Intel benchmarks and the structural specifications of the AMD part. The Intel Core 5 315 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12981 and a single-core score of 1832. Its Cinebench R20 scores are 5452 multi-core and 769 single-core. In Cinebench R15, it scores 1308 multi-core and 184 single-core.

PassMark results for the Intel part show a single-thread score of 4021, a multithread score of 15272, and a physics score of 1163. The Intel part scores 31690 in integer math, 42441 in floating-point math, 13143 in extended instructions, 11119 in data encryption, and 146143 in data compression. It also scores 112 in find prime numbers and 17551 in random string sorting.

The AMD part has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so direct numerical comparison is impossible. However, the structural data favors the AMD processor in multi-threaded scenarios. The AMD part has 10 cores and 20 threads versus 6 cores and 6 threads, a 5.00 GHz boost clock versus 4.40 GHz, and 16 MB of L3 cache versus 6 MB. These differences should translate into higher multi-core throughput, though the exact margin cannot be quantified from the available data.

The Intel part's average benchmark score of 18188 and its 72nd percentile ranking give context for its performance class. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 9274F, scores 18189, a 0% difference. The Intel Core i7-9700 scores 18180, also 0% different. The Intel Core i7-1365U scores 18177, a 0.1% delta. The AMD Ryzen 7 5700U scores 18176, a 0.1% delta. This cluster of rivals indicates that the Intel Core 5 315 performs at a level nearly identical to several established desktop and mobile processors.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i uses the Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation built on Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC and has a die size of 233 mm². The processor supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory through a dual-channel bus, delivering 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported, and the integrated graphics are Radeon 880M. The PCIe implementation is Gen 4 with 16 lanes.

The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation built on Wildcat Lake cores. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process by Intel. The processor supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory through a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported. The integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The PCIe implementation is Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

The cache architecture is fundamentally different. AMD uses a per-core L1 of 80 KB and per-core L2 of 1 MB, with a shared 16 MB L3. Intel uses a unified L1 of 192 KB, L2 of 2.5 MB, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD L3 is nearly three times larger, which benefits workloads with large working sets that need fast access to shared data.

The process node difference is notable: Intel's 3 nm process is one generation ahead of AMD's 4 nm process. Intel's lower TDP of 15 watts versus AMD's 28 watts reflects both the process advantage and the lower core count. The Intel part also has a smaller PCIe footprint at 6 lanes versus 16 lanes, which limits expansion options.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i wins in multi-threaded compute scenarios. Its 10 cores and 20 threads double the thread count of the Intel part. The 5.00 GHz boost clock provides headroom for burst workloads. The 16 MB L3 cache and dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth reduce bottlenecks in data-heavy tasks. ECC support makes it suitable for environments where memory errors are unacceptable. The 16 PCIe lanes allow more peripherals and accelerators to connect directly.

The Intel Core 5 315 wins in power-constrained scenarios. Its 15 watt TDP is significantly lower than AMD's 28 watts, making it easier to cool in thin and light mobile devices. The 3 nm process node from Intel provides a manufacturing advantage. The single-channel memory bus and 6 MB L3 cache are sufficient for lighter workloads that do not demand high memory throughput. The 6 PCIe lanes are adequate for basic connectivity.

For single-threaded performance, the Intel part demonstrates solid results with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1832 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4021. The AMD part has no recorded scores, but its 5.00 GHz boost clock suggests competitive single-thread capability. Without direct benchmark data for the AMD part, the Intel part's recorded scores provide the only measurable single-thread reference point.

For embedded and industrial use, the AMD part has the advantage of ECC memory and higher memory bandwidth, which matter for long-running, error-sensitive workloads. The Intel part has the advantage of lower power draw and a newer process node, which matter for battery-powered or thermally constrained designs. The two processors target different priorities, and the benchmark data confirms that the Intel part sits in a familiar performance tier while the AMD part remains unquantified but structurally superior in multi-core capacity.