AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G vs Intel Core i5-4288U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G wins every single benchmark matchup, and it wins by nearly the same margin in each. Across all five Cinebench tests, the AMD part leads by a deltaPct of approximately -16.2% to -16.5% (where the negative sign indicates the Intel part trails). This uniformity is striking—it suggests the performance gap is systemic rather than workload-specific.

Looking at the multicore results, the R1305G scores 269 in Cinebench R15 multicore versus 225 for the Core i5-4288U, a 16.4% lead. The R20 multicore test shows 1121 against 939, a 16.2% advantage. In R23 multicore, the AMD chip reaches 2670 while the Intel chip manages 2237, again a 16.2% gap. These are not marginal differences; they represent a consistent tier of separation in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

The single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the R1305G posts 158 versus 132 for the i5-4288U, a 16.5% edge. The R23 single-core test shows 377 against 315, a 16.4% advantage. This is particularly notable because the Intel part has a higher boost clock on paper—3.10 GHz versus 2.80 GHz—yet still loses decisively in single-threaded performance. The data implies that architectural efficiency matters more than raw clock frequency in these tests.

There are no benchmark categories where the Intel Core i5-4288U pulls ahead. The wins tally is 0 for Intel and 5 for AMD. However, the Intel part does have one unique data point: a Geekbench multicore score of 1745 and single-core score of 896. The AMD part has no Geekbench results in the fact pack, so no direct comparison is possible there. This absence is worth noting—the only benchmark where the Intel chip might have competitive data is one the AMD chip was not tested on.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G wins across every rendering benchmark category, covering both multicore and single-core Cinebench tests. This suggests it is the superior choice for content creation workloads, 3D rendering, and any task that relies heavily on CPU compute throughput. The consistency of the ~16% lead across R15, R20, and R23 indicates that the advantage scales with the workload—it is not merely a quirk of one benchmark version.

The Intel Core i5-4288U, despite losing all head-to-head tests, does have the Geekbench scores to its name. With a multicore score of 1745 and a single-core score of 896, the Intel part demonstrates it can produce competitive numbers in that specific benchmark suite. Without an AMD Geekbench result, the data cannot confirm whether this would be a win for Intel, but the existence of these scores means the Intel chip is not without some measurable performance credentials.

For use-case segmentation, the data points toward AMD for anything Cinebench-related—which typically correlates with video encoding, 3D modeling, and CPU-bound scientific computing. The Intel chip might still be viable for general productivity tasks, but the benchmark evidence does not show it winning any compute-heavy category. The one area where Intel has a clear advantage is power efficiency—but that is a specification difference rather than a benchmark win.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial and helps explain the benchmark results. The Intel Core i5-4288U is built on a 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 3,500 million transistors into a 148 mm² die. The AMD chip has 2.5 times the transistor count on a die that is only about 25% larger, which speaks to the density improvements of the newer node.

The cache hierarchies differ as well. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip has more cache at every level, which likely contributes to its benchmark advantage, particularly in single-threaded tests where cache latency and hit rates are critical.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The Intel chip has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. The AMD chip has a base clock of 1500.00 MHz (1.50 GHz) and a boost of 2.80 GHz. The Intel chip has a higher clock at both ends, yet loses in every benchmark. The data implies that the Zen architecture extracts more instructions per clock than Haswell, making raw frequency a poor predictor of real-world performance in this matchup.

Memory support differs significantly: the Intel part uses DDR3, while the AMD part uses DDR4 with dual-channel support and 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part does not list a memory bus or bandwidth figure in the data. The AMD chip also supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part has no PCIe information listed. The integrated graphics differ too—Intel HD 5100 versus Radeon Vega 3—though no graphics benchmarks are included in the fact pack.

The release dates are far apart. The Intel i5-4288U launched on 2013-06-03, while the AMD R1305G launched on 2020-02-24. The AMD part is also listed as "Active" in production status, while the Intel part has no production status listed. The Intel chip is from the Haswell generation, while the AMD chip is from the Zen (Banded Kestrel) generation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-4288U has an average benchmark score of 927, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G has an average score of 919. Despite this, the AMD chip wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, suggesting the average score is influenced by benchmarks not included in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How do the percentile rankings compare?

A: The Intel part sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part is at the 24th percentile. The difference is minimal, and both are in the lower quarter of all processors. This aligns with their similar average scores despite the consistent head-to-head deltas.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each chip?

A: For the Intel i5-4288U, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-4350T (avg score 926, delta 0.1%), Intel Core i7-870 (avg score 928, delta -0.1%), Intel Celeron G6900TE (avg score 925, delta 0.3%), and Intel Core i7-4600U (avg score 931, delta -0.5%). For the AMD R1305G, the nearest rivals are the AMD PRO A10-9700E (avg score 919, delta 0%), AMD Athlon Silver 3050U (avg score 917, delta 0.2%), AMD FX-4320 (avg score 921, delta -0.2%), and Intel Pentium Gold G6405T (avg score 915, delta 0.5%).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Intel Core i5-4288U and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G list `eccMemory` as false. Neither chip supports ECC memory according to the data.

Q: Which chip has a higher TDP?

A: The Intel Core i5-4288U has a TDP of 28 watts, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G has a TDP of 10 watts. The AMD chip draws less than half the power of the Intel part.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel chip wins?

A: According to the head-to-head benchmark data, the Intel Core i5-4288U has zero wins, and the AMD R1305G has five wins. There are no head-to-head benchmark victories for the Intel part in the fact pack.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-4288U | AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 1500.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.10 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 10 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1168 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Zen |

| Codename | Haswell | Zen |

| Generation | Core i5 (Haswell) | Ryzen Embedded (Zen (Banded Kestrel)) |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 3,500 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 148 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Not listed | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Not listed | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 5100 | Radeon Vega 3 |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

| Release Date | 2013-06-03 | 2020-02-24 |

| Part Number | SR189 | YE1305C9T2OFG |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G outperforms the Intel Core i5-4288U in every Cinebench test, with a consistent margin of roughly 16%. For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in rendering or CPU-bound workloads, the AMD chip is the clear choice based on the evidence. The R1305G achieves these wins despite a lower boost clock and a much lower TDP (10 watts versus 28 watts), which makes its performance advantage even more compelling from an efficiency standpoint.

The Intel Core i5-4288U does have the higher average benchmark score (927 versus 919) and a slightly better percentile ranking (25th versus 24th), but these metrics are influenced by the Geekbench results that the AMD chip lacks. The head-to-head data, which uses identical tests for both parts, shows no scenario where the Intel chip comes out ahead.

The architectural differences explain the results. The AMD part's 14 nm process, larger cache hierarchy, DDR4 memory support, and Zen architecture deliver better instructions-per-clock than Intel's Haswell design on 22 nm. The Intel chip's higher clock speeds cannot compensate for these fundamental advantages.

For embedded or mobile applications where power consumption is critical, the AMD R1305G's 10-watt TDP is a significant advantage over the Intel part's 28 watts. The data suggests that the AMD chip delivers roughly 16% more performance while consuming less than half the power. For any new design, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G appears to be the superior choice based on the benchmark evidence. The Intel part, with its 2013 release date and no production status listed, appears to be a legacy component that the AMD chip decisively surpasses in the tests included here.