AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 vs Intel Core i3-4360T Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data tells a remarkably close story between these two processors, with the Intel Core i3-4360T taking a narrow but consistent lead across every single test. The head-to-head results show the Intel part winning all five Cinebench comparisons, yet the margins are razor-thin: 0.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 0.5% in R20 multi-core, 0.5% in R23 multi-core, and 0.5% in R23 single-core. The R20 single-core test is a dead heat at 165 points for both.

For a user choosing between these, the decision should hinge on platform features rather than raw performance. The Intel i3-4360T edges ahead in every benchmark, but the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 counters with a lower 25W TDP versus 35W, DDR4 memory support with ECC capability, and a more modern 14nm process node. The AMD part is also a 2020 release compared to Intel's 2014 launch, which explains its more contemporary feature set.

If you need integrated graphics, the Intel part is the only option, as it includes Intel HD 4600 while the AMD chip has no integrated GPU. If you require ECC memory in a low-power embedded system, the Ryzen Embedded R1600 is the clear choice. For pure compute performance as measured by Cinebench, the i3-4360T wins, but by such a slim margin that the difference is effectively negligible in real-world workloads.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i3-4360T is built on the Haswell architecture using a 22nm process at Intel's own foundry, packing 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 leverages the Zen architecture (codenamed "Banded Kestrel") on a 14nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 3,500 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The transistor count difference is substantial — AMD packs more than double the transistors into a smaller physical die.

Both processors feature 2 cores and 4 threads, but their cache hierarchies differ. The Intel part offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, while AMD provides 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core. Both share 4 MB of L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the AMD side reflect the Zen architecture's design priorities.

Memory support is a major differentiator. Intel pairs with DDR3 over a dual-channel bus, while AMD supports DDR4 with a rated memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. AMD also supports ECC memory, which is critical for embedded and reliability-focused applications, while Intel does not. The Intel part includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics; the AMD chip has no integrated graphics at all.

The socket situation is entirely different as well: Intel uses Socket 1150, while AMD uses Socket FP5. The AMD part carries a boost clock of 3.10 GHz against a 2.60 GHz base, whereas the Intel chip has a fixed 3.20 GHz clock with no boost capability. The Intel part is classified as a Desktop segment product, while AMD positions the R1600 as Mobile. Both are locked (multiplier unlocked: false) and remain in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360T wins all multi-core tests. It scores 282 versus 280 in Cinebench R15 (0.7% ahead), 1175 versus 1169 in R20 (0.5% ahead), and 2799 versus 2784 in R23 (0.5% ahead).

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 more power-efficient?

A: Yes. The AMD part has a 25W TDP compared to 35W for the Intel i3-4360T, a 10W difference. This makes AMD the better choice for power-constrained embedded designs.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i3-4360T does not offer ECC support, which is a meaningful consideration for server or reliability-focused applications.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360T includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel part has an average benchmark score of 963, while the AMD part scores 958. Both sit at the 26th percentile among all CPUs, indicating nearly identical overall performance positioning.

Q: What are the closest rivals to these processors?

A: The Intel i3-4360T's nearest rival is the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T with a matching average score of 963 and 0% delta, followed by the AMD A8-9600 at 962 (0.1% delta). The AMD R1600's closest rival is the AMD Opteron 4386 and Intel Core i7-950, both at 957 with 0.1% delta.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-4360T | AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 35W | 25W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Zen |

| Codename | Haswell | Zen (Banded Kestrel) |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

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

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 148 mm² |

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

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

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2014-07-20 | 2020-02-24 |

| Part Number | Not specified | YE1600C4T2OFG |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals an exceptionally tight contest. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel i3-4360T scores 282 against AMD's 280, a 0.7% advantage. That is the largest margin Intel achieves in any test, yet it represents only two points on the scale. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, Intel scores 1175 versus 1169, a six-point gap equating to 0.5%. The R23 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 2799 for Intel against 2784 for AMD, again a 0.5% delta.

Single-core results are even closer. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both processors score exactly 165, a perfect tie with 0% delta. The R23 single-core test gives Intel a 395-to-393 win, a 0.5% margin. Across all five benchmark comparisons, Intel wins five and AMD wins zero, but the cumulative picture is one of near-parity.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this interpretation. Intel's 963 average sits just five points above AMD's 958, a difference of roughly 0.5%. Both processors occupy the 26th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they land in the same performance tier. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Pentium Gold G5500T at 963 (0% delta) and the A8-9600 at 962 (0.1% delta), while AMD's R1600 competes with the Opteron 4386 and Core i7-950, both at 957 (0.1% delta).

What the benchmarks do not capture is the platform context. Intel's 3.20 GHz fixed clock delivers slightly better throughput in these rendering workloads, but AMD's 2.60 GHz base with 3.10 GHz boost, larger per-core caches, and lower TDP suggest different design priorities. The 14nm Zen architecture with 3,500 million transistors is a more modern implementation than Intel's 22nm Haswell with 1,400 million transistors, yet the raw Cinebench scores show that architectural maturity does not translate into a performance win here.

For embedded applications, the AMD part's ECC memory support and DDR4 compatibility may matter more than a 0.5% Cinebench delta. For desktop use with integrated graphics, the Intel part's HD 4600 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU. The benchmark data indicates these are functionally equivalent in compute performance, with the choice resting on feature requirements rather than speed.