AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 vs Intel Core i5-2400S Comparison

The Intel Core i5-2400S and AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 occupy a similar performance tier despite being separated by nearly a decade of design philosophy and a very different physical footprint. The database shows both processors sitting at the 26th percentile against all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 968 for the Intel part and 958 for the AMD part. That is a negligible gap overall, but the head-to-head results reveal a consistent pattern: the Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins every recorded multi-core and single-core test, and it does so by a narrow but uniform margin. The Intel i5-2400S brings four physical cores and a higher boost clock, yet it trails in every workload the database tracks. The practical takeaway is that these chips are rivals only in the sense that they produce comparable composite scores; their actual behavior under load is consistently in favor of the AMD part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes five direct head-to-head comparisons, and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins all five. The smallest lead appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the AMD scores 280 against the Intel’s 262, a difference of 6.4 percent. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar story: the AMD records 1169, the Intel 1092, a 6.6 percent gap. Single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD scores 165 versus the Intel’s 154, again a 6.7 percent deficit for the Intel part. Cinebench R23 multi-core has the AMD at 2784 and the Intel at 2601, a 6.6 percent gap. The final recorded test, Cinebench R23 single-core, has the AMD at 393 and the Intel at 367, also a 6.6 percent difference.

Notice that the delta percentages are remarkably consistent, ranging from 6.4 to 6.7 percent. There is no workload in the dataset where the Intel i5-2400S pulls ahead or even closes the gap. The Intel chip’s advantage in physical core count (4 versus 2) does not translate into a win in any of these tests. The AMD part’s advantage is stable across both lightly threaded and fully threaded workloads. The Geekbench scores in the database are not part of the direct head-to-head, but they reinforce the trend: the Intel i5-2400S posts 1709 in multi-core and 593 in single-core, numbers that align with its trailing position in the Cinebench tests. The AMD R1600 does not have a Geekbench entry in the database, so the comparison rests entirely on the five Cinebench results.

The most important observation is that the AMD part wins by a similar margin whether the test uses one core or all available threads. That suggests the performance difference is not about thread scheduling or core count; it is about the underlying architecture being more efficient per clock. The Intel part boosts to 3.30 GHz, while the AMD part boosts to 3.10 GHz, yet the AMD still wins single-core tests. Higher clock speed on the Intel side does not overcome the architectural deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins every workload category present in the database. There are no wins recorded for the Intel Core i5-2400S. For multi-threaded rendering tasks, such as those represented by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, the AMD part leads by roughly 6.5 percent. For single-threaded tasks, represented by Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests, the AMD part leads by roughly 6.6 percent.

That means the AMD chip is the better choice for anyone running CPU-bound workloads, whether those workloads are heavily threaded or mostly single-threaded. The Intel chip does have a higher boost clock by 0.20 GHz, and it has twice the physical core count, but the recorded data shows no scenario where those specifications produce a measurable victory. The Intel part’s only potential advantage is in the Geekbench multi-core score of 1709, which is higher than its own Cinebench standing would suggest, but there is no head-to-head Geekbench result against the AMD part, so it cannot be counted as a win.

For embedded and low-power applications, the AMD part’s 25 W TDP versus the Intel’s 65 W TDP makes it the more practical choice in thermally constrained systems. The Intel part, being a desktop Sandy Bridge chip, targets a different market segment. The AMD part’s market segment is listed as Mobile, despite being an embedded processor, which reflects its design for compact, low-power devices.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The Intel Core i5-2400S uses the Sandy Bridge architecture, built on Intel’s 32 nm process node. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 uses the Zen architecture, built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process. The transistor counts reflect the difference in design complexity: the Intel chip has 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die, while the AMD chip has 3,500 million transistors on a smaller 148 mm² die. That is roughly three times more transistors in a smaller area, which explains the AMD part’s higher efficiency per clock.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Intel chip has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has more L1 and L2 cache per core but less L3 cache overall. With only two physical cores, the AMD part’s per-core cache allocation is larger, which likely contributes to its single-core performance advantage.

Memory support is another clear divergence. The Intel chip uses DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support. The AMD chip uses DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The AMD part’s memory bandwidth is a significant upgrade, especially for embedded workloads that rely on memory integrity. The Intel part has integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 2000, while the AMD part has no integrated graphics listed in the database. That means the AMD part requires a discrete GPU or a headless setup, while the Intel part can output video without an add-in card.

PCIe support also differs. The Intel chip provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD chip provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. For systems running multiple expansion cards, the Intel part has more direct CPU-attached lanes. However, the AMD part’s lower TDP and ECC support may matter more for embedded applications.

The manufacturing foundry differs as well: Intel fabricates its own chip, while AMD uses GlobalFoundries. The release dates are far apart: the Intel chip was released in January 2011, while the AMD chip was released in February 2020. The Intel part is listed as end-of-life, while the AMD part is still active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins both recorded single-core tests. It scores 165 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 154 for the Intel i5-2400S, and 393 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 367 for the Intel part.

Q: Does the Intel i5-2400S win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Intel part across five head-to-head tests. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins all five.

Q: How much faster is the AMD part in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD part leads by 6.4 percent in Cinebench R15 multi-core (280 versus 262), by 6.6 percent in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1169 versus 1092), and by 6.6 percent in Cinebench R23 multi-core (2784 versus 2601).

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The Intel Core i5-2400S has a 65 W TDP, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has a 25 W TDP. The AMD part draws less power, which is relevant for embedded and compact systems.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-2400S does not support ECC memory.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-2400S includes Intel HD 2000 integrated graphics. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: Intel has 4 cores, AMD has 2 cores.
• Threads: Both have 4 threads.
• Base clock: Intel runs at 2.50 GHz, AMD at 2.60 GHz.
• Boost clock: Intel boosts to 3.30 GHz, AMD to 3.10 GHz.
• TDP: Intel is rated at 65 W, AMD at 25 W.
• Socket: Intel uses Socket 1155, AMD uses Socket FP5.
• Process node: Intel uses 32 nm, AMD uses 14 nm.
• Foundry: Intel uses its own fab, AMD uses GlobalFoundries.
• Transistors: Intel has 1,160 million, AMD has 3,500 million.
• Die size: Intel measures 216 mm², AMD measures 148 mm².
• L1 cache: Intel has 64 KB per core, AMD has 96 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Intel has 256 KB per core, AMD has 512 KB per core.
• L3 cache: Intel has 6 MB shared, AMD has 4 MB shared.
• Memory support: Intel uses DDR3, AMD uses DDR4.
• Memory bandwidth: Intel has no listed bandwidth, AMD is rated at 38.4 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Not supported on Intel, supported on AMD.
• PCIe lanes: Intel has 16 lanes, AMD has 8 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: Intel has Intel HD 2000, AMD has none.
• Market segment: Intel is Desktop, AMD is Mobile.
• Production status: Intel is end-of-life, AMD is active.
• Release date: Intel released in January 2011, AMD in February 2020.
• Part number: Intel is SR00S, AMD is YE1600C4T2OFG.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 as the better performer in every benchmark the database records. It wins all five head-to-head tests, with margins between 6.4 and 6.7 percent. It also does so at a much lower TDP, making it the superior choice for embedded systems, compact builds, or any application where power draw and heat output matter. The Intel Core i5-2400S offers more physical cores, a higher boost clock, and more PCIe lanes, but none of those specifications produce a benchmark win in the recorded data. Its integrated graphics and older DDR3 memory support may appeal to legacy desktop builds, but the processor is end-of-life and lacks ECC support.

The AMD part’s advantages are practical and measurable: higher scores in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests, DDR4 memory with higher bandwidth, ECC support, and a 25 W TDP. The Intel part’s only remaining strengths are its higher core count and its integrated GPU, which are not reflected in any performance win. For anyone choosing between these two based on the database, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 is the clear pick. The Intel i5-2400S may still function in a basic desktop, but the recorded data shows it cannot match the newer AMD chip in any tracked workload.