AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a comparison that is heavily weighted toward one side. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has no benchmark scores in the database, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has a complete set of recorded results. This makes the head-to-head analysis straightforward: Intel holds every recorded win by default, as the database contains no scores for the AMD part to contest any of them.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T posts strong multi-threaded numbers. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21971 places it well above many mobile and desktop processors. The single-core result of 3101 in Cinebench R23 further confirms that the Intel part has solid per-thread performance. In Cinebench R20, the Intel chip records 9227 multi-core and 1302 single-core, while Cinebench R15 shows 2214 multi-core and 312 single-core. These figures form a consistent pattern across three generations of the Cinebench suite.

PassMark results for the Intel part are equally comprehensive. The multi-thread score of 25358 and single-thread score of 4348 indicate balanced performance across both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads. In specific PassMark subtests, the data shows 233998 for data compression, 18289 for data encryption, 20083 for extended instructions, 284 for prime number finding, 82751 for floating point math, 59543 for integer math, 2053 for physics, and 28774 for random string sorting. The floating point and integer math scores are particularly strong, suggesting robust arithmetic capability for compute-heavy tasks.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has zero recorded benchmarks in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and it holds no nearest rivals entries. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 30468 and sits at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD part is at the 50th percentile, though this figure is based on an empty benchmark set, so it should be treated as unverified.

Because the AMD part lacks any recorded scores, the head-to-head comparison cannot show any wins for AMD. The Intel part wins every available benchmark category, which is a direct consequence of the data availability rather than a judgment of theoretical capability. The database simply has no measurements for the AMD processor to compare against.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has an average benchmark score of 30468. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has an average benchmark score of 0, reflecting the absence of recorded benchmark data.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel part is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11980HK, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 7736U, and 0.3% behind the Intel Core i5-13600H based on average scores.

Q: What percentile does each processor occupy in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T sits at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U sits at the 50th percentile, though this is based on an empty benchmark set.

Q: Does the AMD processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Q: What PCIe generation does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U uses Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, part of the 8000 series. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T uses Arrow Lake architecture under the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of Core Ultra Series 2.

The process nodes differ. AMD fabricates the 8640U on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Intel fabricates the 225T on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. This gives the Intel part a smaller process geometry, though both use the same foundry.

Transistor counts and die sizes diverge significantly. The AMD chip contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The AMD part packs more transistors into a smaller area, while the Intel part spreads fewer transistors across a larger die.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. Intel's per-core L1 and L2 allocations are larger, while AMD's L3 is smaller overall.

The integrated graphics differ. AMD uses Radeon 760M graphics. Intel uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units. Both are integrated solutions, though they come from different design teams and feature different resource allocations.

Memory support is similar in type but differs in bandwidth. Both support DDR5 memory with dual-channel buses. The Intel part reaches 102.4 GB/s, while the AMD part reaches 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory support is exclusive to the AMD side.

PCIe capabilities set the two apart. AMD offers PCIe Gen 4, while Intel offers PCIe Gen 5. Both provide 20 lanes from the CPU.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has 10 cores and 10 threads. AMD uses simultaneous multi-threading, while Intel does not enable it on this part.

Base clocks differ. The AMD chip runs at 3.50 GHz base. The Intel chip runs at 2.50 GHz base. Boost clocks are identical at 4.90 GHz for both.

Thermal design power differs. The AMD part has a TDP of 28 watts. The Intel part has a TDP of 65 watts. This is a substantial gap, with Intel consuming more than double the thermal budget.

Sockets are incompatible. AMD uses Socket FP8, while Intel uses Socket 1851. These are different physical sockets for different platforms.

The market segments differ. The AMD part is classified as mobile. The Intel part is classified as desktop. This explains the large TDP difference, as mobile parts typically run at lower power.

Process nodes differ, with AMD at 4 nm and Intel at 3 nm. Transistor counts differ, with AMD at 25,000 million and Intel at 17,800 million. Die sizes differ, with AMD at 178 mm² and Intel at 243 mm².

Cache capacities differ at every level. AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB L3 shared. Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB L3 shared.

Memory bandwidth differs, with Intel at 102.4 GB/s and AMD at 89.6 GB/s. ECC support differs, with AMD supporting it and Intel not. PCIe generation differs, with AMD at Gen 4 and Intel at Gen 5.

Release dates differ. The AMD part was released in April 2024. The Intel part was released in December 2024. Both are currently active in production.

The multiplier is locked on both processors. Neither part supports unlocked overclocking.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for anyone choosing between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has extensive recorded benchmark data showing strong performance across multi-threaded, single-threaded, and specialized compute workloads. Its average benchmark score of 30468 places it at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has no recorded benchmarks, making direct performance claims impossible.

The Intel part also offers more cores, 10 versus 6, and more L3 cache, 20 MB versus 16 MB. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports PCIe Gen 5, while the AMD part supports PCIe Gen 4. These specification advantages align with the Intel part's desktop market segment and higher 65 watt TDP.

The AMD part has its own advantages. It supports ECC memory, which is important for embedded and reliability-focused applications. Its 28 watt TDP is significantly lower, making it suitable for power-constrained environments. The AMD part is also smaller in die size at 178 mm² versus 243 mm², and it packs more transistors at 25,000 million versus 17,800 million.

For applications requiring validated performance data, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is the only option with recorded measurements. For applications requiring ECC memory support and low power consumption, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U offers those features, though its performance remains undocumented in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T wins in every measured benchmark category because it is the only part with recorded scores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21971 and single-core score of 3101 indicate strong performance in rendering and general productivity workloads. PassMark results show particular strength in floating point math at 82751 and integer math at 59543, suggesting good capability for scientific and financial computations.

The Intel part's data compression score of 233998 and random string sorting score of 28774 point to solid file compression and data manipulation performance. Its encryption score of 18289 and extended instructions score of 20083 indicate reasonable security and vectorized workload handling. The physics score of 2053 suggests moderate capability for physics simulation tasks.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U wins in the areas where its specifications provide clear advantages. ECC memory support is a definitive win for the AMD part, as the Intel part lacks this feature entirely. This makes the AMD part the appropriate choice for systems requiring error-correcting memory, such as storage servers, network appliances, or industrial controllers.

The AMD part also wins on power efficiency. Its 28 watt TDP is less than half of the Intel part's 65 watt TDP. For embedded deployments where thermal management or battery life is a constraint, the AMD part has a clear specification advantage.

The AMD part's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz could provide an advantage in lightly threaded workloads if the processor maintains that clock under load, though without benchmark data this remains speculative. Both parts boost to 4.90 GHz, which equalizes peak single-thread potential.

The AMD part's smaller die size of 178 mm² versus 243 mm² and higher transistor count of 25,000 million versus 17,800 million suggest a denser design, which may offer manufacturing or yield advantages in certain contexts. The Intel part's larger L1 and L2 per-core caches could benefit workloads with high data locality, though again, no AMD benchmark data exists to confirm this advantage in practice.