AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS vs Intel Core 5 211E Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents a one-sided comparison, but the nature of that advantage matters for real-world use cases. The Intel Core 5 211E holds every performance win in the benchmark suite, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This means the analysis must focus on what the Intel part delivers and what the AMD processor offers through its architectural profile.

The Intel Core 5 211E dominates the Cinebench family across all three versions. In Cinebench R23, it scores 20,389 points in multi-core and 2,878 in single-core. Those numbers place it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database, which is a strong showing for an embedded processor. The multi-core result is particularly notable because the Intel part uses 10 cores and 16 threads, a configuration that clearly benefits from parallel workloads.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits in the 50th percentile, but this appears to be a data absence rather than a performance statement. The processor carries 6 cores and 12 threads with a 4.30 GHz base clock and 5.00 GHz boost clock. Those specifications suggest competitive single-thread performance, but without benchmark numbers, the database cannot verify that expectation.

For workloads that stress integer math, the Intel part records 88,117 in PassMark integer math and 66,402 in floating point math. These are the kinds of scores that indicate strong general compute capability. The Intel processor also handles data compression at 346,757 in PassMark data compression, which is a large score relative to its other PassMark results.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the Intel Core 5 211E is the only option with measured performance data, and that data shows a capable processor for multi-threaded and single-threaded tasks alike. The AMD part remains a specification-only entry, so any workload analysis must lean on the Intel numbers.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The process difference is substantial, with AMD employing a more advanced node that typically enables better power efficiency per clock.

The transistor counts reflect this gap. The AMD processor packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. The Intel processor has no listed transistor count but uses a larger 257 mm² die. That die size difference suggests the Intel part dedicates more silicon area to its 10 cores and 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD part uses its denser process to fit 6 cores and 16 MB of shared L3 cache.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure. The AMD processor provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB shared L3. The Intel processor provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 20 MB shared L3. Per-core cache is larger on the Intel side, which can help with workloads that repeatedly access the same data.

Memory support splits as well. The AMD part supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth rating of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but its bandwidth is rated lower at 76.8 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory, which is important for embedded and industrial reliability.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation. The AMD processor provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Intel processor provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Gen 5 offers double the theoretical bandwidth per lane, so the Intel part can move more data per lane even with fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics also differ. The AMD part uses Radeon 760M, while the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 730. No benchmark data exists for either GPU, so the comparison stops at the specification level.

The AMD processor draws 45 W TDP, while the Intel processor draws 65 W TDP. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, which is a mobile-oriented socket, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. This socket difference aligns with their market segments: the AMD part is classified as Mobile, and the Intel part is classified as Desktop.

Clock speeds favor the AMD processor in raw terms. The AMD base clock of 4.30 GHz is much higher than the Intel base clock of 2.70 GHz. The boost clocks are closer, with the AMD part at 5.00 GHz and the Intel part at 4.90 GHz. The higher base clock on the AMD side suggests that sustained all-core workloads might run at higher frequencies, though the Intel part compensates with more cores.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for any workload that requires measured performance. The Intel Core 5 211E is the only processor in this comparison with benchmark scores, and those scores are strong. It sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37,829. Its nearest rivals are all AMD parts or other Intel embedded parts, with deltas of only 0.1 to 0.2 percent, meaning the Intel Core 5 211E is statistically tied with the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370. It is also tied with the Intel Core i9-14901E, which shows how competitive this field is at the top.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no recorded benchmarks, so the database cannot confirm its performance. The 50th percentile ranking and zero average score suggest missing data rather than poor performance. The specification sheet shows a high base clock of 4.30 GHz, a 5.00 GHz boost, and a 4 nm process, which are all positive indicators. But without measurements, the AMD part cannot be recommended on performance grounds.

The Intel part also has the advantage of a launch MSRP of $221, which can be stated as a reference point. The AMD part has no launch MSRP listed. The Intel part has a part number of SRQERQ65F, while the AMD part's part number is unknown.

For embedded systems where measured performance is critical, the Intel Core 5 211E is the data-backed choice. For systems where power draw and process efficiency matter more, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS offers a 45 W TDP versus 65 W, but that advantage is unquantified in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E scores 2,878 in Cinebench R23 single-core. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no recorded Cinebench R23 score.

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 211E compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37,829. It is 0.1 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132, 0.2 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435, and 0.2 percent behind both the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and the Intel Core i9-14901E.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS and the Intel Core 5 211E support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS supports 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 211E supports 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core 5 211E has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table is empty in the database, but the Intel Core 5 211E has a full set of individual test scores. The largest win for the Intel part comes in PassMark data compression, where it scores 346,757. This is a massive score that indicates strong throughput for compression workloads, likely benefiting from the 10-core configuration and 20 MB of L3 cache.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 20,389. This is a substantial result for an embedded processor and places it well above typical desktop parts. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 8,563 and the Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2,055 follow the same pattern, showing consistent scaling across benchmark versions.

Single-core results on the Intel part are also respectable. Cinebench R23 single-core scores 2,878, Cinebench R20 single-core scores 1,208, and Cinebench R15 single-core scores 289. These numbers suggest the Intel architecture handles lightly threaded workloads well despite its lower 2.70 GHz base clock.

PassMark results paint a broader picture. The Intel part delivers 88,117 in integer math, 66,402 in floating point math, and 23,833 in multithread. Extended instructions score 21,592, and random string sorting scores 34,308. Data encryption scores 17,938, and physics scores 702. The find prime numbers test scores 43, which is a modest result but consistent with that workload's characteristics.

The single-thread PassMark score is 4,006, which matches the singlethread score of 4,006. This redundancy in the database confirms the single-thread result. No equivalent scores exist for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS, so there is no direct comparison to make.

The Intel processor's average benchmark score of 37,829 and its 86th percentile ranking place it near the top of the database. The nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132, scores 37,804, just 0.1 percent behind. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 scores 37,762, 0.2 percent behind. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 scores 37,904, 0.2 percent ahead. The Intel Core i9-14901E scores 37,911, also 0.2 percent ahead.

These deltas are tiny, all within 0.2 percent. The practical implication is that the Intel Core 5 211E trades blows with a cluster of high-end embedded and mobile processors, none of which has a decisive edge. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS is not in this cluster because it has no average benchmark score.

The Intel part's release date is 2025-01-12, and it is marked as Active in production status. The AMD part's release date is 2024-04-01, also Active. The AMD part is newer by roughly nine months, but that timing difference does not translate into a performance advantage in the recorded data.

The Intel Core 5 211E supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, which is a forward-looking feature for storage and accelerator connectivity. The AMD part supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, which offers more lanes but an older generation. For systems that need Gen 5 devices, the Intel part is the only option.

The AMD processor's 4 nm process and 25,000 million transistors indicate a dense, modern design. The Intel processor's 10 nm process and 257 mm² die suggest a larger, less dense chip. The AMD part's higher base clock of 4.30 GHz versus 2.70 GHz likely gives it a single-thread edge, but the database has no numbers to confirm that. The Intel part's 10 cores give it a clear multi-thread advantage in the tests that were recorded.

In summary, the only head-to-head data available belongs to the Intel Core 5 211E, and that data shows a balanced, high-performing processor with strong scores across every measured category.