AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS vs Intel Core i5-14501TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS or the Intel Core i5-14501TE. The head-to-head benchmark fields are empty, and both processors hold an identical percentile rank of 50 against all CPUs in the database. The average benchmark score for each is zero. Consequently, this comparison rests entirely on architectural specifications and feature sets rather than measured performance deltas. Without recorded scores, no exact wins or losses can be attributed to either part in any workload category.

The absence of data does not imply equivalence in capability. The two processors differ substantially in clock strategy, cache layout, process technology, and platform support. These differences will manifest in real-world performance, but the database currently lacks the measurements to quantify them. What the data does show is that both parts target the same thermal envelope of 45 W TDP and both use 6 cores with 12 threads, making them direct competitors in the embedded and low-power desktop segments.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. This is a mobile-class silicon with a die size of 178 mm² and 25,000 million transistors. The Intel Core i5-14501TE uses Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-R codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with a larger die size of 215 mm². Transistor count for the Intel part is not recorded in the database.

Clock behavior separates the two clearly. The AMD part has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The AMD base clock is nearly double the Intel base clock, while the Intel boost clock edges ahead by 0.10 GHz. This suggests the AMD part sustains higher all-core throughput at moderate loads, while the Intel part relies on boost headroom for short bursts.

Cache organization differs significantly. The AMD part allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has more cache at every level: 25% more L1 per core, 25% more L2 per core, and 50% more L3 overall. Larger caches typically benefit workloads with repetitive data access patterns and can partially offset lower base clocks.

Memory support diverges. The AMD part supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel configuration and a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, but the database does not record a memory bandwidth figure. Both parts support ECC memory, which matters for embedded and reliability-focused deployments. The Intel part's dual memory standard support provides flexibility for existing DDR4 platforms, while the AMD part's narrower support aligns with newer DDR5-only infrastructure.

PCIe connectivity differs in generation and lane count. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Gen 5 doubles the per-lane bandwidth of Gen 4, so the Intel part's 16 Gen 5 lanes offer higher aggregate bandwidth potential despite fewer lanes. The AMD part's 20 Gen 4 lanes provide more physical connectivity for devices that do not require Gen 5 speeds.

Integrated graphics differ. The AMD part uses the Radeon 760M, while the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 770. The database does not include benchmark scores for either iGPU, so relative graphics performance cannot be quantified here.

The process node gap is substantial: 4 nm (TSMC) versus 10 nm (Intel). A smaller process node typically enables higher transistor density and improved power efficiency at equivalent clock speeds. The AMD die is 37 mm² smaller despite holding 25,000 million transistors, which the data confirms. The Intel die's transistor count is not recorded, preventing a direct density comparison.

Production status for both is Active. The AMD part released on 2024-04-01, and the Intel part released on 2024-06-30. The AMD part belongs to the 8000 series and the Ryzen Embedded generation; the Intel part belongs to Core 14th Gen and the Core i5 generation. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700. Neither part has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option on either platform.

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision based on workload type and platform constraints. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS delivers a 4.30 GHz base clock, which is 2.10 GHz higher than the Intel part's 2.20 GHz base clock. For sustained multi-threaded workloads that hold all cores at base frequency, the AMD part should maintain a commanding advantage. The Intel Core i5-14501TE counters with a 5.10 GHz boost clock, 0.10 GHz higher than the AMD's 5.00 GHz, and larger caches at every level. For bursty, single-threaded tasks that scale with boost frequency and cache capacity, the Intel part has the architectural edge.

The process node difference favors AMD on power efficiency. At the same 45 W TDP, a 4 nm process versus a 10 nm process typically translates to lower power draw for the same work, though the database does not include efficiency measurements. The AMD part's 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is a recorded figure; the Intel part's bandwidth is absent, so no comparison is possible on that metric.

The Intel part wins on platform flexibility. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5, which allows builders to reuse existing memory. It also provides Gen 5 PCIe, which offers higher per-lane bandwidth. The AMD part wins on raw core clock and process technology. For users with DDR5-only requirements and a preference for the AMD socket, the 8645HS is the logical choice. For users with existing DDR4 infrastructure or who need Gen 5 PCIe, the 14501TE fits better.

Neither part shows a benchmark advantage in the database. The verdict must be based on specifications alone. The AMD part is better suited to sustained compute tasks that saturate all cores. The Intel part is better suited to lightly threaded workloads that benefit from higher boost clocks and larger cache pools. Both parts support ECC, making either viable for embedded or server-adjacent deployments.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS | Intel Core i5-14501TE |

|---|---|---|

| Base clock | 4.30 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die size | 178 mm² | 215 mm² |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| L1 cache per core | 64 KB | 80 KB |

| L2 cache per core | 1 MB | 1.25 MB |

| L3 cache (shared) | 16 MB | 24 MB |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 760M | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Raptor Lake-R |

| Release date | 2024-04-01 | 2024-06-30 |

| Part number | Unknown | Q49KSRNJN |

The two processors share 6 cores, 12 threads, 45 W TDP, dual-channel memory bus, ECC support, Active production status, and locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has a base clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14501TE has a base clock of 2.20 GHz.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-14501TE has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS's boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS and the Intel Core i5-14501TE support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor supports older DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Core i5-14501TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS supports DDR5 only.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The Intel part has more cache at every level: 80 KB L1 per core versus 64 KB, 1.25 MB L2 per core versus 1 MB, and 24 MB shared L3 versus 16 MB.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has 20 Gen 4 lanes, while the Intel Core i5-14501TE has 16 Gen 5 lanes. The Intel part provides higher per-lane bandwidth with Gen 5.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS wins in scenarios that demand sustained all-core execution. Its 4.30 GHz base clock is 2.10 GHz above the Intel part, meaning that under a full 6-core load, the AMD silicon runs at a substantially higher frequency without requiring boost activation. Workloads such as continuous encoding, compilation jobs, or virtualization hosts that hold all cores busy will benefit from this base clock advantage. The AMD part also wins on process technology, using a 4 nm node versus Intel's 10 nm node, which typically improves power efficiency at the same 45 W TDP. The recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s gives the AMD part a concrete, measurable throughput figure that the Intel part cannot match in the database.

The Intel Core i5-14501TE wins in scenarios that favor burst performance and large working sets. Its 5.10 GHz boost clock exceeds the AMD part's 5.00 GHz, giving it the highest single-core frequency in this comparison. The larger cache hierarchy, 24 MB shared L3 versus 16 MB, and 1.25 MB L2 per core versus 1 MB, helps workloads with high data reuse and moderate working sets. The Intel part also wins on platform flexibility: it supports both DDR4 and DDR5, allowing builders to retain existing memory, and it provides Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes, which doubles per-lane bandwidth relative to Gen 4. For systems that require next-generation storage or accelerator connectivity, the Intel part's PCIe Gen 5 support is the deciding factor.

The socket choice further splits the decision. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, which is a mobile-oriented socket. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700, which is a desktop socket with broader board availability. The Intel part's release date of 2024-06-30 also comes after the AMD part's 2024-04-01, though both are Active in production. Neither part has an unlocked multiplier, so users choosing either platform must accept fixed clock behavior.

In summary, the data points to the AMD part for power-sensitive, always-on, multi-core sustained workloads. The Intel part suits single-threaded responsiveness, cache-heavy applications, and platforms that need DDR4 compatibility or Gen 5 PCIe.