AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS vs Intel Core i5-14401E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a complete set of Cinebench results for the Intel Core i5-14401E, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no benchmark entries in the database. This asymmetry means the comparison relies entirely on the Intel part's measured performance and its standing against its nearest rivals, with the AMD part's capabilities inferred from its architectural specifications.

The Intel Core i5-14401E delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18161 points and a single-core score of 2564 points. In Cinebench R20, the same processor records 7627 points multi-core and 1076 points single-core. The older Cinebench R15 test shows 1830 points multi-core and 258 points single-core. These scores place the processor at the 60th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 5253.

Comparing the Intel part to its nearest rivals in the database, the data shows a tight cluster. The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 averages 5259 points, which is 0.1% higher than the i5-14401E's average. The Intel Core i7-11700B scores 5241, sitting 0.2% below. The Intel Core i9-10850K also scores 5240, again 0.2% lower. The Intel Core i5-13400T trails with 5210 points, a 0.8% deficit. These narrow margins indicate the i5-14401E operates in a performance band where the differences between comparable processors are minimal, typically within a single percentage point.

The absence of benchmark data for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS means the head-to-head comparison cannot be expressed through direct score differentials. The database records zero wins for each side, reflecting the lack of paired test results. What can be analyzed is the architectural positioning: the AMD part uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel part relies on Raptor Lake on Intel's 10 nm process. The AMD processor carries a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, compared to the Intel's 2.50 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. These figures suggest the AMD part has a substantial clock-speed advantage on paper, though without measured scores, the practical impact remains unquantified in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on what each processor offers. For users who require a desktop platform with a specific socket, the Intel Core i5-14401E is the only option with recorded performance metrics. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18161 places it in the upper half of the database, at the 60th percentile, and its average score of 5253 sits within 0.8% of its closest competitors. This processor delivers verified, reproducible performance across all three Cinebench versions.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS, by contrast, has no benchmark records, so its performance cannot be validated against the Intel part. However, its specification sheet indicates a mobile-focused design: it uses AMD Socket FP8, targets the embedded market, and integrates Radeon 760M graphics. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700, targets the desktop segment, and integrates UHD Graphics 730. These are fundamentally different platform types, and the choice between them should follow the intended use case rather than raw score comparisons.

From the available data, the Intel part is the sensible selection for a desktop build where Cinebench scores matter. The AMD part suits an embedded or mobile application where its lower 45 W TDP versus the Intel's 65 W TDP and its 4 nm process node may offer efficiency advantages, though the database does not include power or efficiency measurements to confirm this.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, which is 0.30 GHz higher than the Intel Core i5-14401E's 4.70 GHz.

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 scores for the Intel Core i5-14401E?

A: The Intel Core i5-14401E scores 18161 points in multi-core and 2564 points in single-core in Cinebench R23.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS have any benchmark results in the database?

A: No, the database lists no benchmarks for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS, with zero wins recorded for either side in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-14401E compare to the Intel Core i5-13400T?

A: The Intel Core i5-14401E has an average benchmark score of 5253, which is 0.8% higher than the Intel Core i5-13400T's 5210.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS supports DDR5 only, while the Intel Core i5-14401E supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core i5-14401E uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has a base clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14401E has a base clock of 2.50 GHz, a difference of 1.80 GHz. The boost clocks also differ: AMD reaches 5.00 GHz, Intel reaches 4.70 GHz. The thermal design power is 45 W for the AMD part and 65 W for the Intel part.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses AMD Socket FP8, Intel uses Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part measures 178 mm² on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel part measures 215 mm² on a 10 nm Intel process. Transistor counts are listed only for AMD at 25,000 million; the Intel figure is not recorded.

Cache configurations differ per core. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 20 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR5-only for AMD, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is recorded at 89.6 GB/s for AMD, with no figure for Intel.

PCIe capabilities differ: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics are Radeon 760M for AMD and UHD Graphics 730 for Intel. The market segments differ: AMD is mobile, Intel is desktop. Release dates are April 2024 for AMD and June 2024 for Intel. Both support ECC memory, both have locked multipliers, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, part of the Ryzen Embedded 8000 series. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core i5-14401E uses the Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-R codename, part of the Core 14th Gen series. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel with a 215 mm² die and no transistor count recorded.

The core counts are identical: 6 cores and 12 threads for both. The cache hierarchy differs in size, with Intel providing larger per-core L1 and L2 caches and a larger shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 16 MB of shared L3, while the Intel part has 20 MB. Neither processor features 3D V-Cache.

The AMD processor integrates Radeon 760M graphics, while the Intel processor integrates UHD Graphics 730. Both support ECC memory, but the memory interface differs: AMD is limited to DDR5 with a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with no bandwidth figure recorded. PCIe generation differs, with AMD at Gen 4 and Intel at Gen 5, though Intel provides fewer lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-14401E wins in every category where measured performance exists. Its Cinebench scores across R15, R20, and R23 provide a complete performance profile, and its 60th percentile standing among all CPUs confirms it operates above the median. The average benchmark score of 5253 places it within 0.8% of its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-13400T, and essentially tied with the Intel Core i7-11700B and i9-10850K. For desktop workloads where Cinebench scores correlate with productivity, the Intel part has verified capability.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS wins on paper specifications that suggest efficiency and platform flexibility. Its 4 nm process node indicates a more advanced manufacturing technology than Intel's 10 nm, and its 45 W TDP is lower than Intel's 65 W. The higher base and boost clocks suggest potential single-thread responsiveness, though without benchmark data, this remains unconfirmed. The AMD part also offers a smaller die size and a mobile socket, making it suitable for embedded systems where physical footprint and power draw matter.

The integrated graphics differ: AMD's Radeon 760M is likely to outperform Intel's UHD Graphics 730 in integrated graphics workloads, though the database provides no graphics benchmarks to confirm this. The AMD part's DDR5-only support with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth may favor memory-intensive workloads, while Intel's dual memory support offers greater platform flexibility for users with existing DDR4 modules.

The choice between the two hinges on platform requirements. The Intel part is the only one with recorded performance data, making it the defensible option for desktop builds. The AMD part is positioned for embedded and mobile applications, where its lower TDP, advanced process node, and smaller die size provide qualitative advantages that the database does not quantify through benchmarks.