AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X vs Intel Core 5 120UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two processors is asymmetrical. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X has no individual benchmark scores in the database, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has a full set of Cinebench and PassMark results. Consequently, direct numerical comparisons are impossible. The Intel part's average benchmark score of 13594 places it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12100F at 13494 (0.7% behind), the Intel Core 3 N355 at 13492 (0.8% behind), the Intel Core i5-9500 at 13452 (1.1% behind), and the Intel Core 3 304 at 13745 (1.1% ahead). These delta values show a tight cluster of performance around the Core 5 120UL.

For the Intel Core 5 120UL, the strongest multi-threaded result is a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 8974, with a single-core score of 1266 in the same test. In Cinebench R20, it posts 3769 multicore and 531 single-core. The older Cinebench R15 test yields 904 multicore and 127 single-core. PassMark results show 10558 in multithread and 2080 in single-thread. The data indicates the Intel chip's integer math score of 38060 is notably higher than its floating-point math score of 26311. Data compression reaches 109090, while data encryption hits 7685. Extended instructions score 5203, prime number finding scores 47, random string sorting scores 13610, and physics processing scores 807.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X, by contrast, carries no recorded benchmark scores and no nearest rivals in the database. Its percentile versus all CPUs is listed at 50, with an average benchmark score of 0. This means the database contains no measured performance data for the AMD part whatsoever. Any performance analysis for the Ryzen part must rely on its specification sheet rather than observed results.

The score gap between the two parts cannot be quantified from the available data. What the data does show is that the Intel Core 5 120UL is a measured, mid-range performer surrounded by comparable Intel parts within a 1.1% performance band. The AMD part's lack of scores makes any head-to-head benchmark discussion purely qualitative.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X have any recorded benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database lists an average benchmark score of 0 for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X, with no individual test results and no nearest rivals.

Q: What is the Intel Core 5 120UL's best multi-core result?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL scores 8974 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 3769 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 904 in Cinebench R15 multicore.

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 120UL compare to its closest rival, the Intel Core i3-12100F?

A: The Intel Core 5 120UL has an average score of 13594, which is 0.7% higher than the Intel Core i3-12100F's average score of 13494.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 120UL has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 120UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core 5 120UL uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 120UL wins in the only category where measured performance exists: actual benchmark results. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 8974 and single-core score of 1266 provide concrete reference points. PassMark multithread at 10558 and single-thread at 2080 further establish its measured capabilities. The data shows it sits in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms over two-thirds of recorded processors in the database.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X wins on paper specifications that suggest substantial compute headroom. It offers 16 cores and 32 threads versus the Intel part's 10 cores and 12 threads. Its base clock of 4.30 GHz exceeds the Intel part's 1.30 GHz base clock, and its boost clock of 5.70 GHz exceeds the Intel part's 4.60 GHz. The AMD chip's 64 MB of L3 cache dwarfs the Intel part's 12 MB shared L3. These specifications point to a processor designed for heavier workloads, though the database holds no measurements to confirm this.

The Intel Core 5 120UL wins in power efficiency as measured by TDP. Its 15 W TDP is far lower than the AMD part's 170 W TDP. This makes the Intel chip suitable for thermally constrained environments. The AMD part's higher TDP suggests a need for substantial cooling, though the database does not specify any cooler requirements.

The AMD part wins on platform features. It supports PCIe Gen 5 with 28 CPU lanes, while the Intel part supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. The AMD chip has a dual-channel DDR5 memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but has no listed memory bandwidth figure.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. Core count: 16 versus 10. Thread count: 32 versus 12. Base clock: 4.30 GHz versus 1.30 GHz. Boost clock: 5.70 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP: 170 W versus 15 W. Socket: AMD Socket AM5 versus Intel Socket 1700. Process node: 4 nm versus 10 nm. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. L2 cache: 1 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core. L3 cache: 64 MB versus 12 MB shared. Memory support: DDR5 only versus DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus no listed figure. ECC: supported versus not supported. PCIe: Gen 5 with 28 lanes versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics: Radeon Graphics versus Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. Multiplier: unlocked versus locked. Release date: 2025-10-06 versus 2024-04-07. Transistor count: 16,630 million versus no listed figure. Die size: 2x 70.6 mm² versus no listed figure.

The L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Both are listed as Active production status and Desktop market segment. The AMD part has a part number of 100-000001277E, while the Intel part's part number is unknown.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X belongs to the 9000 series and uses the Granite Ridge codename. Its generation is listed as Ryzen Embedded with Zen 5 (Granite Ridge) architecture. It is built on TSMC's 4 nm process and contains 16,630 million transistors across a dual-die design with each die measuring 70.6 mm². The architecture supports DDR5 memory exclusively and includes ECC memory support. Its PCIe implementation is Gen 5 with 28 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics are Radeon Graphics. The CPU multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking. It was released on 2025-10-06.

The Intel Core 5 120UL uses Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename. It is built on Intel's 10 nm process. The transistor count and die size are not listed in the database. Its cache hierarchy differs: L2 is 1.25 MB per core, and L3 is 12 MB shared. The architecture supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory but does not support ECC. PCIe is Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. The multiplier is locked. It was released on 2024-04-07.

The architectural split is clear. AMD uses a newer, denser process node with a high transistor count and a dual-die layout. Intel uses an older 10 nm node with a lower core count and a smaller cache pool. The AMD architecture targets high-throughput scenarios with 16 cores, 32 threads, and a 64 MB L3 cache. The Intel architecture targets efficiency with a 15 W TDP, dual memory type support, and a modest 10-core, 12-thread configuration. The Zen 5 (Granite Ridge) design in the AMD part represents a newer microarchitecture compared to the Raptor Lake design in the Intel part. The Intel part's support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives it flexibility in memory selection, while the AMD part's exclusive DDR5 support aligns with its higher bandwidth figure of 89.6 GB/s. The AMD part's 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide more expansion bandwidth than the Intel part's 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The unlocked multiplier on the AMD part permits frequency adjustment, whereas the Intel part's locked multiplier prevents such tuning. These architectural differences explain the divergent positioning: the AMD part as a high-core-count embedded processor with substantial memory and I/O bandwidth, and the Intel part as a low-power desktop chip with measured mid-range performance.