AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D vs Intel Core 5 220H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D and the Intel Core 5 220H. The recorded data includes a full benchmark profile for the Intel Core 5 220H, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has no benchmark scores listed. Consequently, the analysis below relies on the Intel processor's measured performance and its position among nearest rivals, alongside the architectural and specification differences documented for both parts.

For the Intel Core 5 220H, the benchmark results show a strong multi-core showing across several workloads. In Cinebench R23, the processor records 11,198 points in multi-core and 1,853 points in single-core. The R20 run produces 7,812 multi-core and 1,102 single-core, while the older R15 test yields 1,835 multi-core and 262 single-core. These scores place the Intel part in the 80th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 28,574.

The Passmark suite further details the Intel processor's capabilities. Integer math reaches 73,555, floating point math hits 51,671, and extended instructions score 14,642. Data compression achieves 247,921, while data encryption records 15,216. The multithread score is 21,884, single-thread scores 3,405, and physics simulation records 1,478. Random string sorting completes at 28,438, and prime number finding scores 82.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Intel Core 5 220H sits within a narrow band. The AMD EPYC 7203P averages 28,583, a 0 percent delta. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS averages 28,549, a 0.1 percent difference. The Intel Xeon E-2436 averages 28,530, also a 0.2 percent delta. The Intel Core i5-12600 averages 28,646, which is 0.3 percent higher, meaning the Core 5 220H trails that specific rival by a small margin. These deltas indicate that the Core 5 220H performs essentially on par with this cluster of competitors, with no meaningful separation in average scores.

Because the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has no recorded benchmark results, no direct wins or losses can be assigned. The wins count for both processors is zero in the head-to-head data. The analysis must therefore proceed on the documented specifications and the Intel part's measured performance relative to its own peer group.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core 5 220H?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H has an average benchmark score of 28,574, placing it in the 80th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 220H compare to its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7203P?

A: The AMD EPYC 7203P has an average score of 28,583, which is a 0 percent delta from the Intel Core 5 220H's 28,574. The two processors are statistically indistinguishable in average benchmark performance.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0 with a percentile of 50.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Core 5 220H?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H has a launch MSRP of $342.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 5 220H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the production status for both processors?

A: Both the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D and the Intel Core 5 220H are listed as active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design families. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D belongs to the 9000 series and uses the Granite Ridge codename, built on the Zen 5 architecture. Its generation is listed as Ryzen Embedded (Zen 5 (Granite Ridge)). The Intel Core 5 220H is based on Raptor Lake architecture, with the codename Raptor Lake-H, and its generation is Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh).

The process nodes differ substantially. The AMD part is fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel part uses a 10 nm process manufactured by Intel's own foundry. The AMD processor contains 16,630 million transistors spread across a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel processor has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. Both processors feature 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache differs: the AMD part has 1 MB per core, while the Intel part has 2 MB per core. The L3 cache marks a major separation. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D houses 128 MB of L3 cache, whereas the Intel Core 5 220H carries 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This represents a substantial difference in on-die cache capacity, favoring the AMD design for workloads that benefit from large cache footprints.

The integrated graphics offerings also differ. The AMD processor includes Radeon Graphics, while the Intel processor includes Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. These are distinct graphics solutions with different performance characteristics, though the database does not provide benchmark scores for either.

Memory support shows another architectural split. The AMD processor supports DDR5 memory only. The Intel processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The AMD processor records a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel processor has no memory bandwidth figure listed.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD processor provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only). The Intel processor provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). This indicates a wider PCIe interface on the AMD part, relevant for expansion and I/O scenarios.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts establish the first clear difference. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds also differ. The AMD processor runs a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The Intel processor runs a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Thermal design power marks a wide gap. The AMD processor has a TDP of 170 watts. The Intel processor has a TDP of 45 watts, making it a much lower-power part suited for mobile applications.

The sockets are incompatible. The AMD processor uses AMD Socket AM5. The Intel processor uses Intel BGA 1744, a ball-grid array socket indicating a soldered mobile design.

Market segments differ accordingly. The AMD processor targets the desktop segment. The Intel processor targets the mobile segment.

The multiplier unlock status differs. The AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking. The Intel processor has a locked multiplier.

Release dates show a temporal separation. The AMD processor was released on 2025-10-06. The Intel processor was released on 2024-12-17, roughly ten months earlier.

The part numbers differ, with the AMD processor listed as 100-000000719E and the Intel processor listed as SRQ6SQ5MM.

ECC memory support differs, as noted earlier: the AMD part supports ECC, the Intel part does not.

Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the AMD part at 89.6 GB/s; the Intel part has no value.

The Intel processor has a launch MSRP of $342. The AMD processor has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

The Verdict

The data indicates two processors with very different positioning. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D offers a high-core-count, high-clock design with 16 cores, 32 threads, a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, and 128 MB of L3 cache. It also supports ECC memory, has an unlocked multiplier, and uses a wider 24-lane Gen 5 PCIe interface. These features align with desktop and embedded workloads where compute throughput, large cache, and system reliability matter.

The Intel Core 5 220H, by contrast, is a mobile processor with 12 cores, 16 threads, a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, and 18 MB of L3 cache. Its 45-watt TDP suits power-constrained mobile environments. The recorded benchmark data shows it performing at the 80th percentile among all CPUs, with an average score of 28,574 and near-parity with its nearest rivals, all within a 0.3 percent delta.

The lack of benchmark data for the AMD processor prevents any direct performance comparison. The verdict must therefore rest on specifications alone. The AMD processor appears built for maximum multi-threaded throughput and cache-heavy workloads, given its 16 cores, 32 threads, 128 MB L3 cache, and higher clock speeds. The Intel processor appears built for balanced mobile performance with lower power consumption and a more modest cache footprint.

Users requiring ECC memory support, an unlocked multiplier, and a larger PCIe lane count will find those only on the AMD side. Users requiring a mobile form factor with a lower TDP and DDR4 compatibility will find those only on the Intel side.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D wins in scenarios where raw core count and thread count dominate. With 16 cores and 32 threads, it outperforms the Intel part's 12 cores and 16 threads in any workload that scales with thread parallelism. The 128 MB L3 cache gives it a decisive advantage for datasets that exceed the Intel part's 18 MB L3 capacity, reducing cache misses and improving throughput in server or embedded applications with repeated access to large working sets.

The higher base and boost clocks, 4.30 GHz and 5.70 GHz respectively, favor the AMD part for latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks. The ECC memory support makes it suitable for error-sensitive environments such as data processing or virtualization. The unlocked multiplier provides flexibility for users who want to adjust clock speeds. The 24-lane Gen 5 PCIe interface supports more expansion devices or higher-bandwidth peripherals than the Intel part's 8 lanes.

The Intel Core 5 220H wins in mobile and power-constrained environments. Its 45-watt TDP is substantially lower than the AMD part's 170-watt TDP, making it viable for laptops and compact mobile systems. The dual memory support for DDR4 and DDR5 gives system designers flexibility in choosing memory technology, potentially lowering system cost or reusing existing DDR4 modules.

The Intel part also has a recorded benchmark profile, showing it performs competitively within its peer group. Its 80th percentile ranking and average score of 28,574 confirm solid all-around performance. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU provides integrated graphics capability, which may suffice for light graphics tasks without a discrete GPU.

The launch MSRP of $342 for the Intel part, stated once here, is the only pricing information in the database. No comparable figure exists for the AMD part.

Each processor thus wins in its respective domain: the AMD part in high-throughput, cache-rich desktop or embedded compute, and the Intel part in low-power mobile systems with proven benchmark performance.