AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U contains no benchmark scores, leaving the Intel Core 5 315 as the only chip in this comparison with measurable results. The Intel part shows an average benchmark score of 18188 across its suite of tests, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals sit remarkably close in average score: the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18189, the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18180, the Intel Core i7-1365U at 18177, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 18176. The delta percentages between these rivals are effectively zero, with the largest gap being 0.1 percent, indicating that the Core 5 315 lands in a tightly clustered performance band.

In Cinebench R23, the Intel Core 5 315 delivers a multicore score of 12981 and a single-core score of 1832. The Cinebench R20 results show 5452 multicore and 769 single-core, while Cinebench R15 records 1308 multicore and 184 single-core. These scores follow the expected scaling pattern across workload versions, with newer tests producing higher absolute numbers. The single-core to multicore ratios across these tests suggest that the chip scales reasonably well when all six threads are engaged, though the thread count is limited to six.

PassMark results paint a more detailed picture of workload characteristics. The chip scores 15272 in multithread performance and 4021 in single-thread performance. Data compression reaches 146143, while data encryption scores 11119. Extended instructions register 13143, and find prime numbers scores only 112, a notably low figure that suggests weakness in that specific integer-heavy operation. Floating point math scores 42441, integer math scores 31690, physics scores 1163, and random string sorting scores 17551.

The lack of benchmark data for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U means the head-to-head comparison cannot be quantified directly from measurements. The database shows zero wins for each part, reflecting the absence of paired test results. What can be stated is that the Intel Core 5 315 has a verified performance profile anchored by its 18188 average score, while the AMD part’s performance remains unmeasured in the current dataset. The percentile gap between the two is stark: the Intel chip sits at the 72nd percentile, while the AMD chip is recorded at the 50th percentile, though this percentile for the AMD part is not backed by any actual benchmark scores in the pack.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The AMD part has an empty benchmarks array and an average benchmark score of zero, so no direct performance measurements exist for it in the recorded data.

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 315 perform in single-threaded workloads?

A: Its PassMark single-thread score is 4021, and in Cinebench R23 it scores 1832 in single-core. These figures place it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Intel Core 5 315 by average score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has an average score of 18189, which is 0 percent delta from the Intel part’s 18188. The Intel Core i7-9700 follows at 18180, also a 0 percent delta.

Q: Which chip has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has 12 threads across 6 cores, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 threads across 6 cores, meaning the AMD part has twice the thread count.

Q: What memory configurations do the two chips support?

A: The AMD chip supports DDR5 in dual-channel mode with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel mode with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either chip support ECC memory?

A: Yes for AMD, which lists ECC memory as true. The Intel Core 5 315 lists ECC memory as false.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U uses the Zen 4 architecture under the codename Hawk Point, built by TSMC on a 4 nm process node. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry. The architectural lineage differs fundamentally: AMD’s part belongs to the 8000 series of Ryzen Embedded processors, while Intel’s part carries the Core 5 designation with no series field recorded.

Transistor counts and die sizes are only available for the AMD chip. It packs 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel chip has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database, so direct density comparisons are impossible from the available data.

Cache structures reveal significant design differences. The AMD chip allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip lists 192 KB of L1 cache total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD part’s per-core L2 allocation of 1 MB across six cores totals 6 MB of L2, which is more than double the Intel part’s entire L2 pool. The L3 cache on the AMD chip is also larger, 16 MB versus 6 MB on the Intel chip.

The integrated graphics differ as well. AMD pairs the CPU with a Radeon 760M, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. PCIe lane counts also diverge: the AMD chip provides 20 Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel chip provides only 6 Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. This suggests that the AMD part is designed for more expansion or more direct device attachment, while the Intel part appears more constrained in that regard.

Memory architecture follows a similar pattern of divergence. The AMD chip supports dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Intel chip supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not. These differences point toward different target applications, with the AMD chip leaning toward reliability and bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Core counts are identical at 6 cores, but thread counts differ: the AMD chip has 12 threads, the Intel chip has 6. Base clocks diverge sharply, with the AMD part at 3.50 GHz and the Intel part at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks also differ: 4.90 GHz for AMD versus 4.40 GHz for Intel. Thermal design power shows a 28 W rating for the AMD chip and a 15 W rating for the Intel chip, indicating that the Intel part is designed for a lower power envelope.

Sockets are incompatible: the AMD chip uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 1516. The process node favors Intel at 3 nm versus AMD’s 4 nm, though the foundries differ, with Intel using its own fabrication and AMD relying on TSMC. Memory support shows AMD limited to DDR5, while Intel supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bus width favors AMD with dual-channel support versus Intel’s single-channel. Memory bandwidth reflects this: 89.6 GB/s for AMD versus 59.7 GB/s for Intel. ECC support exists only on the AMD chip.

PCIe lane counts favor AMD at 20 Gen 4 lanes versus Intel’s 6 Gen 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ in branding and configuration, with AMD’s Radeon 760M versus Intel’s Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Release dates are separated by roughly two years: the AMD part launched in April 2024, while the Intel part launched in April 2026. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $340, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP listed. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part has a recorded part number of SAEFC, while the AMD part’s part number is listed as unknown.

The Verdict

The data presents an asymmetric comparison. The Intel Core 5 315 has a fully populated benchmark profile with an average score of 18188 and a 72nd percentile standing. Its nearest rivals cluster within 0.1 percent in average score, placing it in a verified performance tier. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has no benchmark scores at all, which means its actual performance cannot be assessed from the database.

For workloads where measured performance matters, the Intel chip has the only evidence. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12981 and PassMark multithread score of 15272 provide concrete reference points. The chip’s position at the 72nd percentile, above the 50th percentile recorded for the AMD part, suggests that the Intel chip occupies a higher performance tier in the overall CPU distribution, though the AMD percentile is not supported by any measurements.

The AMD chip offers structural advantages on paper: more threads, higher base and boost clocks, larger caches, dual-channel memory with ECC support, and more PCIe lanes. These specifications point toward a part designed for embedded workloads requiring bandwidth, reliability, and multi-threaded throughput. The Intel chip counters with a lower TDP of 15 W versus 28 W, a smaller process node at 3 nm, and a higher percentile ranking. Without AMD benchmark scores, the verdict must favor the Intel part on measured performance grounds, while acknowledging that the AMD part’s architectural specifications could deliver competitive results in scenarios that its feature set targets.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 315 wins in every measured benchmark category because it is the only chip with recorded scores. Its strength lies in verified performance across Cinebench and PassMark tests, with particular highs in data compression at 146143 and floating point math at 42441. The chip’s low power envelope of 15 W makes it suitable for thermally constrained mobile designs, and its 3 nm process node suggests efficiency advantages. The launch MSRP of $340 provides a reference point for its market positioning, though pricing analysis falls outside the data’s scope.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U wins on specification-driven use cases. Its 12 threads versus 6 give it a clear advantage in heavily multithreaded software, assuming the software can use more than six threads. The dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support makes it appropriate for data integrity-sensitive embedded applications. The 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes allow for more device connectivity, which matters in embedded systems with multiple peripherals. The larger L3 cache of 16 MB versus 6 MB could benefit workloads with repeated data access patterns. The higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 1.50 GHz also indicates stronger sustained performance in lightly threaded tasks. The AMD part’s 28 W TDP is higher, but that trade-off buys a more capable specification sheet. For designs that prioritize memory bandwidth, ECC, thread count, and expansion capability, the AMD chip has the structural advantages, even without measured scores to confirm their impact.