AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 vs Intel Core i7-2715QE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins all head-to-head benchmarks?

**A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins all 5 head-to-head entries: Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, R23 multicore, and R23 singlecore. The Intel Core i7-2715QE records zero wins across those tests.

Q: How much faster is the AMD part in a typical Cinebench run?

**A: The margin is consistent. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 leads by 1.8% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 1.7% in R20 multicore, 1.8% in R20 singlecore, 1.7% in R23 multicore, and 1.8% in R23 singlecore. The largest gap is 1.8%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

**A: The Intel Core i7-2715QE has 4 cores and 8 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Intel part doubles the core and thread count.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

**A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 supports ECC memory (true). The Intel Core i7-2715QE does not, as its ECC memory field is false.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each CPU?

**A: The Intel Core i7-2715QE averages 942 points, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 averages 958 points. That places the AMD part in the 26th percentile of all CPUs, versus 25th for the Intel part.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

**A: No. The Intel Core i7-2715QE includes Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has no integrated graphics (null in the data).

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i7-2715QE is built on the Sandy Bridge architecture using a 32 nm process at Intel’s foundry. It packs 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,500 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The node shrink is significant: 32 nm versus 14 nm. The AMD chip crams roughly three times the transistor count into a smaller die.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Intel part allocates 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. The AMD part gives each core 96 KB L1, 512 KB L2, and shares 4 MB L3. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD chip provides more private cache per core: 50% more L1 and double the L2. Its shared L3 is 2 MB smaller than Intel’s.

Threading is inverted relative to core count. The Intel i7-2715QE offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD R1600 offers 2 cores and 4 threads. Both use simultaneous multithreading, but Intel’s physical core advantage is 2x. Clock speeds favor AMD: the R1600 runs at 2.60 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost, compared to 2.10 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost for the Intel. That is a 0.50 GHz base clock advantage and a 0.10 GHz boost advantage for AMD.

Memory support and platform features diverge. The AMD R1600 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Intel i7-2715QE has no memory support field in the database, only a dual-channel memory bus, and ECC is not enabled. PCIe details exist only for AMD: Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part has no listed PCIe configuration.

Power and packaging differ. The Intel part has a 45 W TDP, while the AMD part draws 25 W. Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1023 for the i7-2715QE, AMD Socket FP5 for the R1600. The Intel part is end-of-life and released in 2011; the AMD part is active and released in 2020. The AMD chip also has a part number (YE1600C4T2OFG) and belongs to the 1000 series, while Intel’s part number is SR076.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 across all five Cinebench tests, but the margins are narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD part scores 280 versus 275 for the Intel, a 1.8% lead. That is the largest delta in the entire comparison. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the AMD part scores 1169 against 1149, a 1.7% lead. The same 1.7% margin appears in Cinebench R23 multicore: 2784 versus 2737.

Single-core tests tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 singlecore, the AMD part scores 165 versus 162, a 1.8% lead. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, it scores 393 versus 386, also 1.8%. No test favors the Intel part. Wins are 5 for AMD and 0 for Intel.

The interesting part is that the Intel chip has double the cores and threads, yet still loses multicore tests. That indicates the AMD Zen architecture’s per-core efficiency and higher clocks overcome the core deficit. The base clock advantage of 0.50 GHz and boost advantage of 0.10 GHz likely contribute to the consistent single-thread wins. The multicore results are more surprising: despite half the cores, the AMD part edges ahead by roughly 1.7% in all multicore tests. This suggests scaling efficiency and clock speed compensate for the lower core count.

The average benchmark scores align with these results. The AMD R1600 averages 958 points, which is 16 points higher than the Intel’s 942. The percentile ranks are 26th versus 25th, respectively. For context, the Intel i7-2715QE’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-8145U (941, +0.1%), AMD Athlon X4 860K (943, -0.1%), AMD A8-7670K (944, -0.3%), and Intel Core i3-1110G4 (945, -0.3%). The AMD R1600’s nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 4386 (957, +0.1%), Intel Core i7-950 (957, +0.1%), AMD Athlon X4 870K (956, +0.2%), and Intel Xeon W3550 (956, +0.2%). Both chips sit in a crowded mid-range band where 1% differences separate adjacent entries.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every physical and functional attribute. Core count: 4 versus 2. Thread count: 8 versus 4. Base clock: 2.10 GHz versus 2.60 GHz. Boost clock: 3.00 GHz versus 3.10 GHz. TDP: 45 W versus 25 W. Socket: Intel BGA 1023 versus AMD Socket FP5. Architecture: Sandy Bridge versus Zen. Process node: 32 nm versus 14 nm. Transistors: 1,160 million versus 3,500 million. Die size: 216 mm² versus 148 mm².

Cache sizes differ per level. L1: 64 KB per core versus 96 KB per core. L2: 256 KB per core versus 512 KB per core. L3: 6 MB shared versus 4 MB shared. Memory bus is dual-channel for both, but AMD lists DDR4 support and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel has no listed memory type or bandwidth. ECC memory: false for Intel, true for AMD. PCIe: none listed for Intel, Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only) for AMD. Integrated graphics: Intel HD 3000 for Intel, none for AMD.

Market segment is mobile for both. Production status: end-of-life for Intel, active for AMD. Release dates differ by roughly nine years: 2011 for Intel, 2020 for AMD. Both have locked multipliers. Launch MSRP is null for both, so no pricing data is available. The AMD part is part of the Ryzen Embedded 1000 series with the codename Banded Kestrel; the Intel part is simply Sandy Bridge.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 as the superior processor in raw Cinebench performance. It wins all five head-to-head tests with margins between 1.7% and 1.8%. It also holds a higher average benchmark score (958 versus 942) and a higher percentile rank (26 versus 25). The AMD part achieves this with half the cores, half the threads, and a 20 W lower TDP. That efficiency is notable: it delivers more performance while drawing 44% less power (25 W versus 45 W).

The Intel Core i7-2715QE does have structural advantages that the benchmarks do not capture. It offers 4 cores and 8 threads, double the AMD part’s counts, and includes integrated graphics. For workloads that scale with core count beyond Cinebench’s specific multi-thread pattern, the Intel chip might behave differently, but the recorded data does not show such an advantage. In the tests available, the AMD part wins every time.

The production status matters for real-world adoption. The Intel chip is end-of-life, released in 2011. The AMD chip is active and released in 2020. The AMD part also supports ECC memory and DDR4, both absent from the Intel part. For embedded or industrial applications where ECC is a requirement, the AMD R1600 is the only viable option among these two.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins in every benchmark category recorded. For single-core performance, it leads by 1.8% in both Cinebench R20 and R23 singlecore tests. That makes it the better choice for lightly threaded tasks where clock speed and per-core efficiency matter. Its higher base clock (2.60 GHz vs 2.10 GHz) and boost clock (3.10 GHz vs 3.00 GHz) support that profile.

For multi-core performance, the AMD part also wins, albeit by slightly smaller margins (1.7% in both R20 and R23 multicore). This is counterintuitive given the Intel chip’s 4-core/8-thread configuration versus 2-core/4-thread for AMD. The Zen architecture’s efficiency and the higher clocks compensate. For workloads that resemble Cinebench’s rendering pattern, the AMD part is the faster choice.

The Intel Core i7-2715QE’s wins are not in the performance domain but in capability. It includes Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics, which the AMD part lacks entirely. Systems that need a display output without a discrete GPU would favor the Intel chip. Its 6 MB shared L3 cache is 2 MB larger than the AMD’s 4 MB, which could help in cache-sensitive workloads, though the recorded benchmarks do not reflect that. Its 4-core/8-thread layout provides more parallel resources, which could benefit software that uses more than 4 threads, but again, the Cinebench results do not validate that advantage.

The AMD part wins on platform features: DDR4 memory support, ECC memory, and PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes. The Intel part has no listed PCIe configuration and no ECC. For embedded systems requiring error-correcting memory or modern memory standards, the AMD R1600 is the clear pick. Its active production status also means availability for new designs, while the Intel part is end-of-life. In short: AMD wins on speed, efficiency, memory features, and availability. Intel’s only advantages are integrated graphics, more physical cores, and a larger L3 cache.