AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 and the Intel Processor N150?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has an average benchmark score of 62839, while the Intel Processor N150 has an average benchmark score of 1025. The AMD part sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Intel part sits in the 28th percentile.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare between these two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part also carries a 16 MB L3 cache, whereas the Intel part has a 6 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor offers higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 provides 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth over a dual-channel bus, while the Intel Processor N150 provides 38.4 GB/s over a single-channel bus. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Intel part supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel Processor N150 has a TDP of 6 watts. The Intel part is rated for substantially lower power draw.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 uses the Radeon 890M, and the Intel Processor N150 uses the UHD Graphics 730.

Q: What are the production statuses and release dates for these parts?

A: Both parts are marked as Active in production. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has a release date of 2026-02-28, and the Intel Processor N150 has a release date of 2024-11-19.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 and the Intel Processor N150 diverge sharply in architectural design. The AMD part belongs to the Gorgon Point codename family and uses the Ryzen AI Embedded generation built on Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel part belongs to the Twin Lake codename family and uses the Intel Processor generation based on Alder Lake-N, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 10 nm.

The core topology also differs. The AMD part has 12 cores and 24 threads, which indicates simultaneous multithreading support. The Intel part has 4 cores and 4 threads, with no multithreading. The cache hierarchy reflects this gap. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. While the Intel part has a slightly larger L1 per core and a larger L2 allocation per core when considered as a shared pool, the AMD part's larger L3 and higher core count give it a structural advantage in workloads that scale with cores and shared cache.

The memory controllers are also built differently. The AMD part uses a dual-channel memory bus and supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with an ECC option. The Intel part uses a single-channel memory bus and supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but lacks ECC support. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is listed at 89.6 GB/s, versus 38.4 GB/s for the Intel part. The PCIe interface differs as well: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only).

The physical packages are different sockets. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, and the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1264. The die size for the AMD part is 233 mm²; the Intel part has no listed die size. The AMD part is not multiplier unlocked, and neither is the Intel part. The Intel part has a listed part number of SRPNR; the AMD part has an unknown part number.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD part has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The low base clock on the Intel part suggests a design oriented toward low idle power and bursty workloads rather than sustained high-frequency operation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for these two processors comes from different test suites, so direct numerical comparisons are limited, but the available results show a wide performance gulf. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has a PassMark single-thread score of 3977. The Intel Processor N150 has a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935 and a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 153.15. The AMD part's single-thread result places it in a much higher performance class, consistent with its 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs.

In multi-threaded workloads, the AMD part's advantage expands. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 achieves a PassMark multithread score of 31817. The Intel Processor N150 achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2590.5 and a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 422.5. The ratio between these scores is large, but the test types differ, so the more reliable comparison is the average benchmark score. The AMD part's average benchmark score is 62839, and the Intel part's is 1025. That is a difference of roughly 61 times in favor of the AMD part.

The AMD part's individual PassMark results show strong performance across a range of workloads. Its data compression score is 374429, its data encryption score is 19612, its extended instructions score is 26544, its find prime numbers score is 129, its floating point math score is 70587, its integer math score is 117832, its physics score is 1772, and its random string sorting score is 40557. These figures indicate heavy lifting in encryption, compression, and math-heavy tasks.

The Intel part's Cinebench results are the only benchmark entries in its record. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2590.5 and single-core score of 935, along with the Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 422.5 and single-core score of 153.15, position it near the low end of the database. Its nearest rivals, based on average score, include the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T at a delta of 0.1%, the Intel Core i3-4340 at a delta of -0.1%, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U at a delta of 0.1%, and the Intel Core i7-5650U at a delta of -0.2%. The Intel Processor N150 is effectively clustered with processors from several generations ago.

The AMD part's nearest rivals, by contrast, are modern high-end parts. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has an average score of 62738, a delta of 0.2% from the AMD part. The Intel Core i7-13790F has an average score of 63080, a delta of -0.4%. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX has an average score of 63173, a delta of -0.5%. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 has an average score of 62498, a delta of 0.5%. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 sits within a tight cluster of high-performance processors, with deltas under 1% in all directions.

The data indicates that the AMD part competes at the top of the mobile processor stack, while the Intel part competes at the low end. The AMD part's percentile ranking of 93 versus the Intel part's percentile ranking of 28 captures this divide. In practical terms, the AMD part is roughly comparable to the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX, the Intel Core i7-13790F, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465. The Intel part is roughly comparable to the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T, the Intel Core i3-4340, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U, and the Intel Core i7-5650U.

The wins in the head-to-head comparison are entirely one-sided. The database records zero wins for the Intel Processor N150 and zero wins for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 in the head-to-head benchmark table, which is empty. The available benchmark data, however, shows the AMD part ahead in every recorded metric type where comparable workload categories exist. The AMD part's single-thread PassMark score of 3977 versus the Intel part's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935 is not a direct apples-to-apples comparison, but the percentile and average score data confirm the overall ranking.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 uses 12 cores and 24 threads; the Intel Processor N150 uses 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz; the Intel part has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The AMD part has a TDP of 28 watts; the Intel part has a TDP of 6 watts.

The socket and package differ: AMD Socket FP8 for the AMD part, Intel BGA 1264 for the Intel part. The codenames differ: Gorgon Point for the AMD part, Twin Lake for the Intel part. The generations differ: Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) for the AMD part, Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) for the Intel part. The process nodes differ: 4 nm at TSMC for the AMD part, 10 nm at Intel for the Intel part.

The die size is listed only for the AMD part at 233 mm². Cache configurations differ: the AMD part has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB L3; the Intel part has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: the AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with ECC, while the Intel part supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 without ECC. The memory bus differs: dual-channel for the AMD part, single-channel for the Intel part. Memory bandwidth differs: 89.6 GB/s for the AMD part, 38.4 GB/s for the Intel part.

The PCIe interface differs: Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the AMD part, Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the Intel part. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 890M for the AMD part, UHD Graphics 730 for the Intel part. The release dates differ: 2026-02-28 for the AMD part, 2024-11-19 for the Intel part. Neither part has a launch MSRP listed in the database. Both parts are marked as Active in production and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part number is unknown for the AMD part and SRPNR for the Intel part.

The architecture field is null for the AMD part and Twin Lake for the Intel part. The series field is null for both parts. The market segment is Mobile for both parts.

The Verdict

The recorded data draws a clear line between these two processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 is a high-end mobile processor aimed at compute-heavy workloads. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, 5.10 GHz boost clock, 16 MB L3 cache, 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 93rd percentile ranking place it alongside the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX, the Intel Core i7-13790F, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465. The deltas among these parts are all under 1%, which means the AMD part is competitive with the fastest mobile silicon in the database.

The Intel Processor N150 is a low-power mobile processor. Its 4 cores, 4 threads, 3.60 GHz boost clock, 6 MB L3 cache, 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 28th percentile ranking place it alongside the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T, the Intel Core i3-4340, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U, and the Intel Core i7-5650U. The deltas among these parts are all under 0.2%, which means the Intel part is clustered with older low-end processors.

The selection between these two parts depends entirely on the workload and power budget. The AMD part delivers a massive performance advantage in every recorded metric category, but it does so at a TDP of 28 watts. The Intel part operates at a TDP of 6 watts, which is a fraction of the AMD part's power envelope. For systems where sustained compute throughput, high memory bandwidth, and ECC memory support are required, the AMD part is the clear choice from the data. For systems where power draw is the primary constraint and the workload is light, the Intel part offers a much lower power footprint.

The benchmark results do not support any scenario where the Intel part outperforms the AMD part. The average benchmark score difference is roughly 61 times in favor of the AMD part. The percentile rankings, 93 versus 28, confirm that these parts occupy different performance classes. The Intel part's nearest rivals are all processors from older generations, while the AMD part's nearest rivals are current-generation high-end parts.

The verdict, strictly from the data, is that the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 is the appropriate choice for performance-oriented mobile systems, and the Intel Processor N150 is the appropriate choice for low-power, light-duty mobile systems. The Intel part's lower TDP and older, smaller core configuration make it suitable for power-constrained designs, but its benchmark scores show it is not in the same performance class as the AMD part. The AMD part's higher TDP, larger cache, dual-channel memory, and higher clock speeds make it suitable for demanding workloads, but its power requirements are substantially higher. No other conclusion is supported by the recorded measurements.