AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS vs Intel Core 5 213PE Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS and the Intel Core 5 213PE both present eight cores and sixteen threads, but the recorded data places them in different performance tiers. The AMD chip, built on the Zen 4 architecture with a 4 nm process, is a mobile part from the 8000 series. The Intel chip, using the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process, is a desktop processor with a 65 watt TDP. The benchmark results available in the database cover the Intel part extensively, while the AMD part has no recorded benchmark scores, which shapes the comparison. The Intel Core 5 213PE achieves an average benchmark score of 35428 and sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong overall performance. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS holds a 50th percentile ranking with no average score, meaning the quantitative comparison must rely on the Intel data and the architectural specifications of both parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database provides a full set of benchmark scores for the Intel Core 5 213PE, and these numbers define its performance profile. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score reaches 22468, while the single-core score is 3172. The R20 results show 9436 for multicore and 1332 for single-core, and the R15 results show 2264 for multicore and 319 for single-core. These scores indicate a processor that scales well across multi-threaded workloads, with the multicore figures consistently outpacing the single-core results by a wide margin.

The PassMark suite adds more detail. The multithread score is 26434, and the single-thread score is 4060. The integer math test produces 92089, while floating point math reaches 68587. Data compression scores 298804, data encryption scores 15916, and extended instructions score 19565. The prime number finding test yields 114, physics scores 1624, and random string sorting scores 32027. These numbers show a processor that excels in integer-heavy tasks and data compression, while the physics score is comparatively lower, suggesting that some real-world workloads may not scale as well.

Since the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has no benchmark entries in the database, a direct head-to-head comparison of scores is impossible. The data instead shows that the Intel part holds a strong position relative to its nearest rivals. The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 35428 on average, which is 0.1 percent ahead of the Intel Core i7-13700T, 0.2 percent ahead of the Intel Core i7-12700KF, 0.3 percent ahead of the Intel Core i5-13600T, and 0.4 percent ahead of the Intel Core i7-12700K. These narrow margins place the Core 5 213PE at the top of a tight cluster of high-performing processors, meaning its benchmark results are competitive with chips that typically occupy higher tiers.

For the AMD part, the lack of scores means the only quantitative comparison comes from the specification sheet. The AMD chip has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the Intel chip has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Intel part has a higher boost clock by 0.10 GHz, but the AMD part has a significantly higher base clock by 1.10 GHz. In single-threaded workloads that rely on sustained frequency, the AMD part might hold an advantage due to its higher base clock, but the Intel part’s higher boost clock could deliver better peak performance. The database does not include scores to confirm this, so the analysis must remain speculative on this point.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 213PE wins in any workload that the benchmark scores cover, simply because it has recorded data and the AMD part does not. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22468 indicates strong performance in rendering and video encoding, tasks that use all cores and threads. The PassMark integer math score of 92089 and data compression score of 298804 suggest that the Intel part handles database operations, file compression, and other integer-heavy tasks with ease. The floating point math score of 68587 points to capable performance in scientific calculations and simulations that rely on floating point arithmetic.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS wins in the specification comparison for certain use cases. Its higher base clock of 3.80 GHz versus the Intel part’s 2.70 GHz suggests that in workloads which do not boost to maximum frequency, the AMD part may sustain higher throughput. The AMD part also uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, which is more advanced than the Intel part’s 10 nm process. This process advantage typically translates to better power efficiency, though the database does not provide efficiency scores. The AMD part has a 45 watt TDP, while the Intel part has a 65 watt TDP, so the AMD chip consumes less power at the specification level.

The mobile versus desktop split is also relevant. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel Core 5 213PE is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700. For embedded systems or compact laptops, the AMD part is designed for that form factor. For desktop workstations or industrial PCs, the Intel part fits that role. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $221, which is stated once here, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS is built on Zen 4 with the codename Hawk Point, and it uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core 5 213PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and a 10 nm process from Intel. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 10 nm, with the AMD part using a more advanced manufacturing process. The AMD part has 25,000 million transistors on a die size of 178 mm², while the Intel part has no transistor count or die size listed in the database.

Cache structures differ as well. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has larger L1 and L2 caches per core, and a larger L3 cache overall. This could benefit workloads that repeatedly access the same data, as more cache reduces memory latency. The AMD part’s smaller cache is offset by its higher base clock and faster memory bandwidth.

Memory support also differs. The AMD part supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The AMD part has higher memory bandwidth by 12.8 GB/s, which could benefit memory-intensive workloads. Both parts support ECC memory, which is important for embedded and server applications where data integrity is critical.

PCIe connectivity is another key difference. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The Intel part has a newer PCIe standard, which offers higher bandwidth per lane, but the AMD part has more lanes. The integrated graphics differ too: the AMD part uses Radeon 780M, while the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 730. The Radeon 780M is typically more capable for graphics tasks, though the database does not provide graphics benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows several clear differences between the two processors. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has a base clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 213PE has a base clock of 2.70 GHz, a difference of 1.10 GHz in favor of AMD. The boost clocks are closer: 5.10 GHz for AMD and 5.20 GHz for Intel, a difference of 0.10 GHz in favor of Intel. The TDP differs by 20 watts: 45 watts for AMD and 65 watts for Intel. The sockets are different: AMD Socket FP8 versus Intel Socket 1700.

The process node differs: 4 nm for AMD and 10 nm for Intel. The transistor count is listed only for AMD at 25,000 million, and the die size is listed only for AMD at 178 mm². The cache hierarchy differs as detailed above: AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB L3 shared, while Intel has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB L3 shared. The memory support differs: AMD supports only DDR5, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 76.8 GB/s for Intel. The PCIe version differs: Gen 4 with 20 lanes for AMD and Gen 5 with 16 lanes for Intel.

The integrated graphics differ: Radeon 780M for AMD and UHD Graphics 730 for Intel. The market segment differs: Mobile for AMD and Desktop for Intel. The release dates differ: the AMD part launched on 2024-04-01, while the Intel part launched on 2026-03-08. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $221, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP. The Intel part has a part number of SA4QG, while the AMD part has an unknown part number. Both parts have locked multipliers, meaning they cannot be overclocked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel Core 5 213PE has a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, giving the AMD part a 12.8 GB/s advantage.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS and the Intel Core 5 213PE support ECC memory, which is important for data integrity in embedded and server workloads.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE has a shared L3 cache of 24 MB, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has a shared L3 cache of 16 MB, making the Intel part 8 MB larger.

Q: What are the benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS?

A: The database lists no benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS. Its average benchmark score is 0, and it has no entries in the benchmark records, so a direct comparison with the Intel part’s scores is not possible.

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 213PE compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PE has an average benchmark score of 35428, which is 0.1 percent ahead of the Intel Core i7-13700T, 0.2 percent ahead of the Intel Core i7-12700KF, 0.3 percent ahead of the Intel Core i5-13600T, and 0.4 percent ahead of the Intel Core i7-12700K.

The Verdict

The data in the database offers a clear verdict for the Intel Core 5 213PE, which has a full set of benchmark scores and a strong percentile ranking. With an 85th percentile position and an average benchmark score of 35428, the Intel part delivers proven performance in multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22468 and PassMark multithread score of 26434 confirm that this processor handles demanding tasks well. Its nearest rivals, all Intel chips, are within 0.4 percent of its average score, so the Core 5 213PE sits at the top of a competitive group.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has no benchmark scores in the database, so its performance cannot be verified. The specification sheet shows a higher base clock of 3.80 GHz, a lower TDP of 45 watts, a more advanced 4 nm process, and higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. These factors suggest that the AMD part could be more efficient and potentially faster in sustained low-frequency workloads, but without recorded scores, this remains unconfirmed.

For a builder choosing between these two, the Intel Core 5 213PE is the safe choice for any workload that relies on benchmark-verified performance. The data shows it delivers strong results across Cinebench and PassMark tests, and its launch MSRP of $221 is stated once here. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS is the better choice for embedded mobile applications where the 45 watt TDP and smaller process node matter, and where the higher base clock could provide consistent throughput. The Intel part uses a desktop socket, while the AMD part uses a mobile socket, so the platform drives the decision as much as the raw specifications. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the AMD part supports only DDR5, which affects memory choices. The Intel part has a higher boost clock, but the AMD part has a higher base clock. The database does not provide enough information to declare a definitive performance winner, but the Intel part has the recorded evidence.