AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 vs Intel Core 7 160HL Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 compare to the Intel Core 7 160HL in overall CPU ranking?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs tracked in the database, with an average benchmark score of 62,839. The Intel Core 7 160HL is at the 50th percentile with no recorded average benchmark score in the database, which places it in the middle of the field while the AMD part is firmly in the upper tier.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel part has more physical cores, but the AMD part has more threads due to its simultaneous multithreading implementation.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, which is slightly higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185's 5.10 GHz. The AMD part has a lower base clock at 2.00 GHz compared to Intel's 2.50 GHz.

Q: What process node does each processor use?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 is built on TSMC's 4 nm process node, while the Intel Core 7 160HL uses Intel's 10 nm process node. The AMD chip also has a die size of 233 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Intel part.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 7 160HL does not. This makes the AMD part more suitable for embedded and reliability-focused applications where memory error correction is required.

Q: What integrated graphics do these processors feature?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 uses the Radeon 890M integrated graphics, while the Intel Core 7 160HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 and Intel Core 7 160HL represent fundamentally different design approaches. The AMD processor carries the Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Embedded generation built on the Zen 5 and Zen 5c core architecture. The Intel Core 7 160HL is based on Raptor Lake architecture and belongs to the Raptor Lake-PS generation. These architectural lineages shape every measured difference between the two.

The fabrication process separates the two clearly. AMD uses TSMC's 4 nm node, while Intel uses its own 10 nm process node. The AMD chip measures 233 mm² of die area, while the Intel part has no recorded die size. The smaller process node for AMD typically enables higher transistor density and lower power draw per unit of work, though the data in the database does not provide direct transistor counts for either chip.

Core topology differs substantially. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 provides 12 cores and 24 threads, meaning each core supports two threads. The Intel Core 7 160HL provides 14 cores but only 20 threads, indicating a hybrid configuration where some cores lack hyper-threading. The Intel part has more physical cores, but the AMD part produces more concurrent threads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both processors use 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The AMD part uses 1 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Intel part uses 2 MB of L2 cache per core. For L3 cache, the AMD processor has 16 MB total, while the Intel processor has 24 MB shared. The Intel part therefore carries more total cache, particularly at the L3 level where it holds 50% more data.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory across a dual-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. The AMD part's support for LPDDR5X is notable for embedded and mobile applications where power-efficient memory is valuable. The Intel part's support for DDR4 provides compatibility with older memory infrastructure.

PCIe connectivity separates the two as well. The AMD processor provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the CPU, while the Intel processor provides Gen 4 with only 8 lanes. The AMD part offers double the PCIe lane count, which matters for embedded systems that need to attach multiple peripherals directly to the CPU.

The AMD processor is classified in the mobile market segment and uses the AMD Socket FP8. The Intel processor is classified in the desktop market segment and uses Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel part has a TDP of 45 watts. The AMD part's lower TDP aligns with its mobile and embedded positioning, while the Intel part's higher TDP reflects its desktop-oriented design.

Both processors are currently marked as active in production. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has a release date of February 28, 2026, while the Intel Core 7 160HL has a release date of April 7, 2024. Neither processor has a launch MSRP recorded in the database, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a full set of PassMark benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185, while the Intel Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark entries. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts for both processors are zero. The analysis below therefore uses the AMD part's recorded scores against the database-wide context and the nearest rival comparisons available for the AMD chip.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 achieves an average benchmark score of 62,839. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX with an average score of 62,738, the Intel Core i7-13790F with 63,080, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX with 63,173, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 with 62,498. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX, 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465, 0.4% behind the Intel Core i7-13790F, and 0.5% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX. These deltas are small, placing the AMD part in a tightly contested performance band.

Multi-threaded performance for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 is recorded at 31,817 in the PassMark multi-thread test. This is the headline throughput number for the part. Single-thread performance is recorded at 3,977 in the PassMark single-thread test, with a duplicate entry of the same value under a slightly different test name. The single-thread score places the AMD part in a competitive position for lightly threaded workloads.

The integer math test produces a score of 117,832 for the AMD processor. Floating point math comes in at 70,587. Extended instructions score 26,544. These three numbers indicate strong arithmetic throughput across both integer and floating-point workloads. The extended instructions result shows the processor's ability to handle specialized instruction sets, which matters for embedded workloads that use vectorized or cryptographic operations.

Data compression performance is recorded at 374,429 in the PassMark data compression test, which is the highest single score in the AMD part's benchmark set. Data encryption scores 19,612. Random string sorting scores 40,557. The compression result stands out as particularly strong, suggesting that the memory subsystem and core architecture work well together for bandwidth-sensitive compression workloads.

The find prime numbers test returns a score of 129 for the AMD processor. The physics test returns a score of 1,772. These are the two lowest scores in the AMD part's benchmark suite, indicating relative weakness in these specific algorithmic patterns.

Since the Intel Core 7 160HL has no benchmark scores recorded in the database, direct numerical comparisons between the two processors cannot be made from the recorded data. The Intel part's percentile ranking of 50 places it at the median of all CPUs in the database, while the AMD part's percentile ranking of 93 places it well above the median. The gap in percentile ranking is 43 points, which is substantial when considering the full distribution of processors tracked by the database.

The absence of Intel benchmark data means the database cannot confirm any performance relationship between these two specific parts. What the data does show is that the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 is a high-percentile performer with strong multi-thread, single-thread, and compression scores, while the Intel Core 7 160HL is an unmeasured part sitting at the median percentile.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but qualified recommendation. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 is the only one of the two processors with recorded benchmark results, and those results place it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 160HL sits at the 50th percentile with no benchmark data. For any workload where measured performance matters, the AMD part is the only option with supporting evidence in the database.

Embedded system designers should favor the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 for applications that require ECC memory support, which the Intel part lacks. The AMD part also offers 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes compared to 8 lanes on the Intel part, doubling the available CPU-attached I/O. The AMD part's 28 watt TDP is lower than the Intel part's 45 watt TDP, which matters for thermally constrained embedded enclosures. The AMD part's 24 threads exceed the Intel part's 20 threads, and the AMD part's 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth gives it a measured memory throughput advantage.

The Intel Core 7 160HL retains advantages in specific areas. It has 14 cores versus 12 cores on the AMD part. It has a higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz versus 5.10 GHz and a higher base clock at 2.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. It has 24 MB of shared L3 cache versus 16 MB on the AMD part, and 2 MB of L2 cache per core versus 1 MB. It supports DDR4 memory in addition to DDR5, which aids compatibility with existing memory inventories. The Intel part also has an earlier release date of April 7, 2024, compared to the AMD part's February 28, 2026.

Desktop system builders who prioritize raw core count and cache capacity may consider the Intel Core 7 160HL, but the lack of recorded benchmark data means its actual performance against the AMD part cannot be verified from the database. The Intel part's 45 watt TDP is higher, its PCIe lane count is lower, and it lacks ECC support.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 is the better-documented processor in this comparison. Its benchmark suite covers 11 recorded test entries, its nearest rivals are all within 0.5% of its average score, and its 93rd percentile ranking places it among the top processors in the database. The Intel Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark entries and a median percentile ranking.

For reliability-focused embedded deployments, the AMD part's ECC memory support and lower TDP make it the logical choice. For applications that need maximum L3 cache and more physical cores, the Intel part offers those specifications, but without benchmark validation. The database currently supports the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 as the higher-performing and more thoroughly characterized processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160HL uses 14 cores and 20 threads. Base clock differs: 2.00 GHz for AMD versus 2.50 GHz for Intel. Boost clock differs: 5.10 GHz for AMD versus 5.20 GHz for Intel. TDP differs: 28 watts for AMD versus 45 watts for Intel.

Sockets are different: AMD Socket FP8 for the AMD part, Intel Socket 1700 for the Intel part. Codename differs: Gorgon Point for AMD, Raptor Lake-PS for Intel. The AMD generation is Ryzen AI Embedded based on Zen 5 and Zen 5c, while the Intel generation is Core 7 based on Raptor Lake-PS. Process node differs: 4 nm from TSMC for AMD, 10 nm from Intel for the Intel part. Die size is 233 mm² for AMD, with no recorded value for Intel.

Cache configuration differs at L2 and L3. Both use 80 KB of L1 per core. AMD uses 1 MB of L2 per core, while Intel uses 2 MB per core. AMD has 16 MB of L3, while Intel has 24 MB of shared L3.

Memory support differs: AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD, with no recorded value for Intel. ECC memory is supported on AMD but not on Intel. PCIe lanes differ: Gen 4 with 16 lanes for AMD, Gen 4 with 8 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 890M for AMD, Iris Xe Graphics 96EU for Intel.

Market segment differs: Mobile for AMD, Desktop for Intel. Release date differs: February 28, 2026 for AMD, April 7, 2024 for Intel. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, neither has a recorded launch MSRP, and both are active in production.