AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain any head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D and the Intel Core 7 350. The database shows zero wins for each processor in direct comparisons, and no individual test scores are listed for the AMD part. This absence of direct measurements means the analysis must rely on the available specification data and the Intel part's standalone benchmark results.

The Intel Core 7 350 has a full set of benchmark scores in the database. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 8030, while its single-core score is 2046. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5373 multi-core and 758 single-core. The Cinebench R15 results show 1220 multi-core and 292 single-core. PassMark tests show a multi-thread score of 15170, a single-thread score of 4100, integer math at 33734, floating point math at 42809, data compression at 143123, data encryption at 10933, extended instructions at 12045, find prime numbers at 107, physics at 1173, and random string sorting at 17238.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has no benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as zero, and its percentile versus all CPUs is 50. The Intel Core 7 350 has an average benchmark score of 17779 and sits at the 71st percentile versus all CPUs. The percentile gap is substantial: the Intel part ranks in the upper third of all processors in the database, while the AMD part sits exactly at the median.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core 7 350 provide context. The Intel Core 5 221TE scores 17860, which is 0.5% higher. The AMD EPYC 9374F scores 17693, which is 0.5% lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT scores 17891, 0.6% higher. The Intel Core 5 120U scores 17898, 0.7% higher. The Intel Core 7 350 is therefore clustered tightly with these four processors, all within a 0.7% band. This indicates that the Intel part's performance is consistent with mid-range desktop and mobile processors from both manufacturers.

Without direct AMD benchmark data, a quantitative head-to-head comparison is impossible. The database records no scores for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D, so every claimed performance advantage or deficit would be speculation. The only factual statement is that the Intel part has verified scores and the AMD part does not.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D uses the Granite Ridge codename and belongs to the Ryzen Embedded generation based on Zen 5 architecture. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 16,630 million transistors and a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The AMD part has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel part has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part supports simultaneous multithreading, doubling threads per core. The Intel part has no thread multiplier, meaning one thread per core. This gives the AMD part a 2x thread advantage in purely parallel workloads, assuming all cores are utilized.

Cache configurations are structurally different. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's L3 is shared across all cores and is 128 MB total. The Intel part's L3 is 6 MB shared. The AMD part has significantly more total cache, especially at the L3 level, which is 21x larger than the Intel part's L3.

Clock speeds diverge. The AMD part has a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD part has a 2.9 GHz higher base clock and a 0.7 GHz higher boost clock. The Intel part's base clock is very low, typical for a mobile low-power design, while its boost clock is competitive with desktop parts.

Process node differences favor Intel at 3 nm versus AMD's 4 nm. The Intel part uses its own foundry, while AMD uses TSMC. The Intel part has a single-channel memory bus, while the AMD part has a dual-channel memory bus. Memory bandwidth reflects this: AMD lists 89.6 GB/s, Intel lists 59.7 GB/s. The AMD part supports DDR5 only, while the Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. ECC memory is supported on the AMD part but not on the Intel part.

PCIe connectivity differs. The AMD part supports Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part supports Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. This is a major expansion difference: the AMD part has 4x the lane count and a newer PCIe generation. Integrated graphics also differ: AMD uses Radeon Graphics, while Intel uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part is locked. The AMD part uses socket AM5, a desktop socket, while the Intel part uses BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket. The AMD part is classified as a desktop market segment, and the Intel part as mobile. The AMD part has a TDP of 120 watts, while the Intel part has a TDP of 15 watts. This 105-watt difference indicates vastly different thermal and power envelopes.

The Verdict

The data shows two processors aimed at entirely different use cases. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D is a high-power desktop part with 12 cores, 24 threads, a 5.50 GHz boost clock, 128 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel DDR5 memory, PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes, and a 120-watt TDP. The Intel Core 7 350 is a low-power mobile part with 6 cores, 6 threads, a 4.80 GHz boost clock, 6 MB of L3 cache, single-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X memory, PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, and a 15-watt TDP.

For users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput, the AMD part's 24 threads versus 6 threads is decisive. The AMD part also has a much larger L3 cache, which is critical for workloads that repeatedly access large datasets. The AMD part's higher base clock and boost clock further reinforce its performance advantage in sustained workloads. The dual-channel memory bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth versus 59.7 GB/s is another clear advantage.

For users who need low power consumption in a compact mobile device, the Intel part is the only viable choice. A 15-watt TDP versus 120 watts means the Intel part can run in thin laptops or embedded systems without active cooling. The Intel part's single-channel memory and 6 PCIe lanes are sufficient for light workloads. Its 3 nm process and Intel Xe3 graphics make it a complete low-power package.

The database shows no benchmark scores for the AMD part, so a performance comparison cannot be quantified. The Intel part's average score of 17779 and 71st percentile place it in the mid-to-upper range of all CPUs. The AMD part's zero scores and 50th percentile are uninformative. Anyone choosing between these two must do so based on specifications alone, and the specifications point to opposite ends of the power spectrum.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category. The AMD part has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel part has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD base clock is 4.40 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for Intel. The AMD boost clock is 5.50 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP is 120 watts for AMD and 15 watts for Intel. The AMD socket is AM5, while the Intel socket is BGA 1516.

The process node is 4 nm for AMD and 3 nm for Intel. The codename is Granite Ridge for AMD and Wildcat Lake for Intel. The generation is Ryzen Embedded (Zen 5) for AMD and Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) for Intel. The foundry is TSMC for AMD and Intel for Intel. The AMD part has 16,630 million transistors, while the Intel part has none recorded. The AMD die size is 2x 70.6 mm², while the Intel die size is not recorded.

L1 cache per core is 80 KB for AMD and 192 KB for Intel. L2 cache per core is 1 MB for AMD and 2.5 MB for Intel. L3 cache is 128 MB for AMD and 6 MB shared for Intel. Memory support is DDR5 for AMD and DDR5 plus LPDDR5X for Intel. Memory bus is dual-channel for AMD and single-channel for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 59.7 GB/s for Intel.

ECC memory is supported on AMD and not on Intel. PCIe is Gen 5 with 24 lanes for AMD and Gen 4 with 6 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics are Radeon Graphics for AMD and Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for Intel. The market segment is desktop for AMD and mobile for Intel. The multiplier is unlocked for AMD and locked for Intel. The part number is 100-000001368E for AMD and SAE3F for Intel.

The release dates differ: AMD was released on 2025-10-06, and Intel on 2026-04-15. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $469. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded. Both are active in production status. The AMD part has a percentile of 50 and an average score of 0, while the Intel part has a percentile of 71 and an average score of 17779.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD part has a TDP of 120 watts, and the Intel part has a TDP of 15 watts, a difference of 105 watts.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD part has 128 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel part has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 350 support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported on the Intel part. The AMD part does support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each?

A: The AMD part has 89.6 GB/s with a dual-channel bus, and the Intel part has 59.7 GB/s with a single-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD part has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, while the Intel part has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: What is the Intel Core 7 350's average benchmark score?

A: The Intel part has an average benchmark score of 17779 and sits at the 71st percentile versus all CPUs. The AMD part has no recorded benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D wins in every specification category that favors raw compute and expandability. Its 24 threads versus 6 threads gives it a clear advantage in multi-threaded workloads such as compiling, rendering, and server-side processing. Its 128 MB L3 cache is sized for large working sets, which is a major advantage for database workloads and scientific computing. Its dual-channel memory bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth support high-throughput data movement. Its PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes allows for many high-speed expansion devices, including multiple GPUs or NVMe drives. Its 5.50 GHz boost clock and 4.40 GHz base clock provide high per-core speed. Its unlocked multiplier allows tuning, and its AM5 socket is a desktop platform with upgrade options.

The Intel Core 7 350 wins in every category that favors power efficiency and mobility. Its 15-watt TDP is one-eighth that of the AMD part, making it suitable for fanless or small-form-factor designs. Its 3 nm process is newer than AMD's 4 nm, which contributes to its low power draw. Its support for LPDDR5X memory allows for low-power RAM in laptops. Its BGA 1516 socket is a soldered mobile package, which reduces size and weight. Its Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores is an integrated solution that avoids a discrete GPU. Its single-channel memory bus is sufficient for light tasks and saves power. Its 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are enough for basic peripherals. Its locked multiplier is irrelevant for low-power designs, and its 4.80 GHz boost clock is still capable for bursty single-thread tasks.

The benchmark data only covers the Intel part. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8030 and single-core score of 2046 indicate a balanced performer for its class. Its PassMark multi-thread score of 15170 and single-thread score of 4100 confirm this. The nearest rivals, all within 0.7% of its average score, show that the Intel part is competitive with mid-range offerings from both AMD and Intel. The AMD part has no recorded scores, so its wins are purely theoretical based on its superior specifications.

For a desktop workstation or embedded server requiring maximum throughput and expansion, the AMD part is the clear choice. For a mobile device or ultra-low-power embedded application, the Intel part is the only choice given its power envelope. The two do not compete in the same market segment, and the data reflects this divergence in every specification field.