AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X vs Intel Core i5-110 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X or the Intel Core i5-110. Both processors show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. The percentile ranking for both parts sits at 50, meaning each lands exactly in the middle of all CPUs tracked in the database, but without measured performance data, the percentile offers no differentiation between them.

This absence of data is itself informative. The Ryzen Embedded 9600X belongs to a newly released embedded line, while the Core i5-110 appears to be a refreshed Comet Lake part. Neither has accumulated enough submissions to generate a meaningful score. The database shows zero wins for either processor, so no numerical advantage can be claimed from direct comparisons. Any statement about which chip is faster would require extrapolation from architectural differences, not measured results.

What the data does show is that both CPUs share the same core and thread counts: 6 cores and 12 threads. The Ryzen part clocks substantially higher, with a base of 3.90 GHz and a boost of 5.40 GHz. The Intel part runs at 2.90 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. These raw clock figures suggest the AMD processor should hold a frequency advantage in single-threaded workloads, but without benchmark scores, the magnitude remains unknown.

The memory bandwidth numbers also favor AMD: 89.6 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s for Intel. That is more than double the theoretical bandwidth, which could influence memory-sensitive tasks. However, the database records no measured performance to confirm how these specifications translate into real-world results.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X uses the Granite Ridge design, built on Zen 5 architecture. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i5-110 uses Comet Lake, a 14 nm design fabricated by Intel itself. That process difference spans several generations, with the AMD part using a far more advanced node.

Transistor counts and die size reflect this gap. The Ryzen Embedded 9600X contains 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die. The Intel Core i5-110 has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database, which means those figures are unavailable for comparison. The lack of data for the Intel part suggests an older design where such metrics may not have been tracked in the same detail.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The AMD processor provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip has more than double the L3 capacity and four times the L2 per core. For workloads that rely on cached data, this gap could be meaningful.

Memory support also diverges. The Ryzen Embedded 9600X uses DDR5 memory with dual-channel support and an 89.6 GB/s bandwidth rating. The Core i5-110 uses DDR4, also dual-channel, but with a much lower 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. For embedded or server-adjacent workloads, ECC support can be a deciding factor.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD processor provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes. That represents both a bandwidth and lane-count advantage for AMD, which could matter for storage arrays or accelerators.

Integrated graphics differ too. The Ryzen Embedded 9600X carries Radeon Graphics, while the Core i5-110 uses UHD Graphics 630. The database does not include benchmark scores for either iGPU, so their relative performance cannot be quantified.

The socket platforms are entirely different: AMD Socket AM5 for the Ryzen part, Intel Socket 1200 for the Core i5. The AMD processor also has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Intel part is locked. The Intel chip has a recorded launch MSRP of $200, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-110 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-110 does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD part is rated at 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel part is rated at 42.7 GB/s.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core i5-110 uses Intel's 14 nm process.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, the database lists both production statuses as "Active."

The Verdict

The recorded data offers no benchmark scores, so a direct performance verdict cannot be derived from measurements. What the database does show is a clear architectural split. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X delivers higher clocks, a newer process node, more cache, faster memory, more PCIe lanes, and ECC support. The Intel Core i5-110 provides a lower clock, older process, smaller cache, slower memory, fewer PCIe lanes, and no ECC.

For workloads where the database's recorded specifications matter, such as memory bandwidth, cache capacity, or ECC reliability, the AMD part holds every listed advantage. The Intel part has one recorded advantage: a launch MSRP of $200. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP, so its cost position cannot be assessed.

The production status of both parts is active, meaning neither is discontinued. The AMD processor is newer, with a release date of October 6, 2025, while the Intel part has a release date of September 10, 2025. Both are recent additions to the database.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X appears positioned for workloads that demand modern features, while the Intel Core i5-110 occupies a legacy socket with a known price point. Without benchmark scores, the performance gap remains unquantified, but the specification differences consistently favor AMD.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X | Intel Core i5-110 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.90 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Codename | Granite Ridge | Comet Lake |

| Generation | Ryzen Embedded (Zen 5) | Core i5 (Comet Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 8,315 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 70.6 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB per core | 64 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 256 KB per core |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB shared | 12 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 24 lanes | Gen 3, 16 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $200 |

| Part Number | 100-000001405E | SA35X |

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded specifications, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X wins in every measurable performance-related category. It has the higher base clock, higher boost clock, larger cache at every level, faster memory standard, higher memory bandwidth, ECC support, newer PCIe generation, more PCIe lanes, and an unlocked multiplier. The 4 nm process node and larger transistor count (8,315 million versus no recorded count) reinforce the technological lead.

The Intel Core i5-110 wins only in the categories where the AMD part lacks recorded data. It has a launch MSRP of $200, while the AMD part has none. It also uses the established Intel Socket 1200 platform, which may appeal to systems already built around that socket. The Intel part's 14 nm process, while older, is a mature manufacturing node that could offer supply stability, though the database does not record any supply information.

For workloads such as memory-bound tasks, cache-heavy applications, or ECC-required environments, the AMD part appears better suited. For systems constrained to a legacy socket or a known price point, the Intel part has the only recorded advantage. Without benchmark scores, the database cannot confirm how these specification differences translate into actual performance, but the specification sheet consistently points to AMD.