AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 5 238V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a complete benchmark suite for the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has no benchmark entries in the same dataset. This asymmetry means the comparison is limited to the Intel processor's measured performance against its nearest rivals, with the AMD part's capabilities described through its specifications alone.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V posts an average benchmark score of 21,981. Its closest rival in the database is the Intel Core i7-11700F with an average score of 21,988, a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600X scores 21,992, also a 0 percent delta. The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V trails by 0.1 percent at 21,952, and the AMD EPYC 9534 is 0.4 percent behind at 21,900. These near-identical scores place the Core Ultra 5 238V in a tight cluster of comparable processors.

Single-thread performance for the Core Ultra 5 238V shows a Cinebench R23 score of 2,208 and a Cinebench R20 score of 927. The PassMark single-thread result is 3,890. Multithreaded results include 15,645 in Cinebench R23 and 6,570 in Cinebench R20. The Cinebench R15 results are 222 for single-core and 1,576 for multi-core.

PassMark workloads show varied strengths. The data compression test produces 176,532, while data encryption reaches 13,072. Extended instructions score 15,377, and prime number finding yields only 174. Floating point math achieves 53,160, integer math scores 38,889, and the multithread test records 18,407. Physics simulation scores 1,546, random string sorting reaches 21,585, and single-thread performance again records 3,890.

The Core Ultra 5 238V sits at the 75th percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating that it outperforms three-quarters of recorded processors. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has a percentile of 50, placing it exactly at the median, though this figure derives from its specification profile rather than direct benchmark measurements.

Because the AMD processor has no benchmark scores in the database, no direct head-to-head wins can be quantified. The Intel part's wins are established through its benchmark suite and its position relative to the four nearest rivals. The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V, a close sibling in the same series, is the only rival within 0.1 percent, confirming that the 238V sits at the top of its immediate comparison group.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-11700F?

A: The average benchmark scores are effectively identical, with the Core Ultra 5 238V at 21,981 and the Core i7-11700F at 21,988, a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600X matches at 21,992, also 0 percent.

Q: What is the Intel processor's percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Core Ultra 5 238V records a 75th percentile, meaning it exceeds 75 percent of all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has a 50th percentile, placing it at the median.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V has 8 cores and 8 threads, exactly half the cores and one-quarter of the threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two processors?

A: The AMD processor has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The Intel processor has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has 128 MB of L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, a substantial difference of 120 MB.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has a TDP of 170 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V has a TDP of 17 watts, one-tenth of the AMD part's rating.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V wins decisively in the benchmark data. Its 75th percentile ranking against all CPUs demonstrates strong overall performance. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15,645 and single-core score of 2,208 indicate balanced capability across both lightly threaded and heavily threaded workloads. PassMark data compression at 176,532 shows particular strength in data reduction tasks, while floating point math at 53,160 and integer math at 38,889 cover general computational workloads.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has no benchmark measurements in the database, so its wins cannot be established from recorded performance data. However, its specifications suggest areas where it may hold advantages. The 16-core, 32-thread configuration with a 5.70 GHz boost clock points to high multi-threaded throughput potential. The 128 MB L3 cache is exceptionally large, which typically benefits data-intensive workloads and cache-sensitive applications. The 4 nm process node from TSMC with 16,630 million transistors indicates a complex, high-capability design.

For practical use cases, the Intel part's measured data supports its use in mobile systems where its 17-watt TDP and integrated Arc 130V graphics serve power-constrained environments. The AMD part's 170-watt TDP, dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes position it for desktop and embedded server applications where performance per watt is less critical than absolute throughput.

The Core Ultra 5 238V's nearest rivals all score within 0.4 percent, meaning the Intel part wins its comparison group by a narrow margin. The AMD EPYC 9534, a server-class processor, trails by 0.4 percent, indicating the mobile Intel part competes favorably even against enterprise hardware in average benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D uses 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V uses 8 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds differ substantially: AMD runs at 4.30 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost, Intel at 2.10 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. Thermal design power shows the largest gap, with AMD at 170 watts and Intel at 17 watts.

Cache configurations are markedly different. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 128 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD processor's total cache capacity far exceeds the Intel processor's, driven primarily by the 120 MB difference in L3.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD processor supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and it includes ECC memory support. The Intel processor's memory support is listed as unknown and depends on the motherboard, also dual-channel, with no ECC support and no recorded memory bandwidth figure.

PCIe lanes differ by a factor of six. The AMD processor provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU. The Intel processor provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU. The AMD part integrates Radeon Graphics, while the Intel part integrates Arc 130V graphics.

Form factors and sockets are entirely different. The AMD processor uses AMD Socket AM5, a desktop socket, and is unlocked for multiplier adjustments. The Intel processor uses Intel BGA 2833, a ball-grid array for mobile systems, and is locked. The AMD processor's production status is Active with a release date of October 6, 2025, while the Intel processor is also Active with a release date of September 23, 2024.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D belongs to the 9000 series and uses the Granite Ridge codename with Zen 5 architecture. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process node by TSMC, containing 16,630 million transistors across a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The part number is 100-000000719E, and it falls under the Ryzen Embedded generation label.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Lunar Lake architecture and codename. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process node by TSMC, though transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The part number is SRPN5SRPN4, and it falls under the Ultra 5 generation label.

Process node differences are minimal but present: 4 nm for AMD versus 3 nm for Intel, both from TSMC. The AMD part's 16,630 million transistors across two 70.6 mm² dies represents a large, multi-die design. The Intel part's transistor count is unrecorded, so direct comparison is not possible.

The AMD processor's memory subsystem uses DDR5 with ECC support, appropriate for embedded and server reliability requirements. The Intel processor's memory support depends on the motherboard, lacks ECC, and has no recorded bandwidth figure.

Integrated graphics differ by brand and capability. The AMD part uses Radeon Graphics, while the Intel part uses Arc 130V. Both provide integrated display output, but the database records no benchmark scores for either graphics solution.

The market segments differ fundamentally. The AMD part targets Desktop, reflected in its AM5 socket, unlocked multiplier, and 170-watt TDP. The Intel part targets Mobile, reflected in its BGA 2833 socket, locked multiplier, and 17-watt TDP. These architectural choices align with their intended deployment environments: the AMD processor for high-throughput embedded and desktop systems, the Intel processor for power-efficient mobile devices.

The release timeline shows the Intel part launched on September 23, 2024, over a year before the AMD part's October 6, 2025 release date. Both remain in Active production status. The Intel part's earlier release and measured benchmark data provide a concrete performance baseline, while the AMD part's specifications suggest a higher-performance design that the database has not yet quantified through benchmarks.