AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 vs Intel Processor U301L Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 and Intel Processor U301L occupy very different positions in the recorded benchmark data. The AMD part has a full set of PassMark results, while the Intel part has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This means the comparison is necessarily one-sided, but the available data still provides a clear picture of relative performance.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 posts a multithread score of 31817. Its single-thread score is 3977. The integer math test returns 117832, while floating point math reaches 70587. Data compression scores 374429, and data encryption lands at 19612. Extended instructions score 26544, find prime numbers returns 129, physics scores 1772, and random string sorting reaches 40557.

The Intel Processor U301L has no benchmark entries. Its percentile ranking among all CPUs sits at 50, which places it in the middle of the database. The AMD part ranks at the 93rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the AMD chip is 62839, while the Intel chip has an average benchmark score of 0 due to missing data.

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 provide context for its standing. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX averages 62738, which is 0.2 percent behind the AMD part. The Intel Core i7-13790F averages 63080, which is 0.4 percent ahead. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX averages 63173, which is 0.5 percent ahead. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 averages 62498, which is 0.5 percent behind. These deltas are small, meaning the AMD P185 sits in a tightly contested performance band.

Because the Intel U301L has no scores, no head-to-head wins can be recorded for either side. The database shows zero wins for each part in direct comparison. The practical implication is that any performance statement about the Intel chip must rely on its specifications and market positioning rather than measured results.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 have a higher single-thread score than the Intel Processor U301L?

A: The database shows a single-thread score of 3977 for the AMD part. The Intel Processor U301L has no recorded single-thread score, so a direct numerical comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

Q: What is the multithread performance of the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185?

A: The AMD part scores 31817 in the PassMark multithread test. This places it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD part averages 62839 across all benchmarks. Its closest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX, averages 62738, a difference of 0.2 percent. The Intel Core i7-13790F is 0.4 percent ahead, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is 0.5 percent ahead, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 is 0.5 percent behind.

Q: Are there any benchmark results for the Intel Processor U301L?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark scores for the Intel Processor U301L. Its percentile ranking is 50, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0.

Q: What is the production status of both processors?

A: Both the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 and the Intel Processor U301L are listed as active production parts.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Processor U301L has a boost clock of 2.20 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 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 at TSMC. The die size is 233 mm². The Intel Processor U301L uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry.

Cache organization differs substantially. 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 also has 80 KB of L1 per core, but its L2 is 1.25 MB per core, and its L3 is 8 MB shared. The AMD chip therefore has twice the L3 capacity of the Intel chip. The L2 per core is slightly larger on the Intel side, but the core count difference changes how that cache is actually used.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, but it does not support ECC memory. No memory bandwidth figure is recorded for the Intel chip.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. This gives the AMD chip more room for expansion devices such as storage controllers or add-in cards.

Integrated graphics are another point of separation. The AMD part uses the Radeon 890M. The Intel part uses UHD Graphics 64EU. Both are integrated solutions, but the recorded data does not include graphics benchmark scores.

The process node difference is significant. The AMD part uses 4 nm silicon, while the Intel part uses 10 nm. This affects transistor density and power characteristics, though the database does not list transistor counts for either part.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious specification gap. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Processor U301L has 5 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part offers more than double the core count and four times the thread count.

Clock speeds differ heavily. 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 1.20 GHz and a boost clock of 2.20 GHz. The AMD chip boosts to over twice the Intel chip's maximum frequency.

Thermal design power is also different. The AMD part is rated at 28 watts. The Intel part is rated at 15 watts. The AMD chip uses a higher power envelope, which aligns with its higher core count and clock speeds.

Sockets are incompatible. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700.

Release dates are separated by nearly two years. The Intel Processor U301L was released on April 7, 2024. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 was released on February 28, 2026.

The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $107. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both are locked parts.

The AMD part has a die size of 233 mm². The Intel part has no die size recorded.

The Intel part has a part number of SRPKFQ5CW. The AMD part has an unknown part number.

Both are classified as mobile market segments, and both are currently active production parts.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 wins in every measured performance category because it is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark data. Its multithread score of 31817 indicates strong parallel workload capability. The integer math score of 117832 and floating point math score of 70587 show solid compute throughput. Data compression at 374429 is the highest single test score recorded for this chip. Data encryption at 19612 and extended instructions at 26544 suggest reasonable cryptographic and SIMD performance. Physics simulation scores 1772, and random string sorting reaches 40557. Find prime numbers returns 129, which is a lower score but still a recorded result.

The Intel Processor U301L has no benchmark wins because no scores exist. Its value lies in its specification profile. The 15 watt TDP makes it a low-power option. The 5 cores and 6 threads provide basic multithreading. The 2.20 GHz boost clock is modest. Its L2 cache of 1.25 MB per core is actually larger per core than the AMD chip's 1 MB per core. The shared 8 MB L3 is half the AMD part's 16 MB. The U301L supports DDR4 in addition to DDR5, which could matter for systems with existing DDR4 memory. Its 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are half the AMD part's 16 lanes.

For workloads that depend on raw core count, thread count, clock speed, and cache capacity, the AMD part is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For workloads that prioritize lower power draw and simpler platform requirements, the Intel part has a specification-based argument, though no measured performance exists to confirm it.

The Verdict

The recorded data points strongly toward the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 for any performance-sensitive application. The 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with a 5.10 GHz boost clock, 16 MB of L3 cache, and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, position it well above the Intel Processor U301L in theoretical capability. Its benchmark scores confirm that positioning. A multithread score of 31817 and a single-thread score of 3977 are substantial numbers, and the 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs places it near the top of the database.

The Intel Processor U301L is a different kind of part. Its 15 watt TDP, 5 cores, 6 threads, and 2.20 GHz boost clock define it as a low-power processor. The lack of benchmark data means the database cannot confirm its actual performance, but its specifications suggest it targets efficiency rather than throughput. The 50th percentile ranking, which is based on its specification profile rather than measured scores, places it in the middle of the field.

The nearest rival data for the AMD part shows how close the top of the market is. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX, Intel Core i7-13790F, and Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX all sit within 0.5 percent of the AMD chip's average score. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 is 0.5 percent behind. This means the P185 is competitive with recent high-end Intel parts, though not decisively ahead of any of them.

For users who need maximum compute capability in a mobile form factor, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 is the part the data supports. For users who need minimal power consumption and basic processing, the Intel Processor U301L offers a lower-power alternative, but the absence of benchmark scores leaves its actual performance unverified. The choice comes down to whether the workload demands the AMD part's measured performance or whether the Intel part's lower power envelope is the priority. The data does not support claiming the Intel part as a performance equal, since no measurements exist to back such a claim.