AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G vs Intel Core i5-3320M Comparison

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G boosts to 3.50 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-3320M reaches 3.30 GHz. Both share the same 2.60 GHz base clock.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-3320M scores 2258 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 22.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G's 1842. Despite the AMD part's newer architecture, the Intel chip wins this specific multi-threaded test.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G dominates single-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 888 versus the Intel's 318, a massive 64.2% advantage. The AMD chip also has a higher boost clock at 3.50 GHz.

Q: What are the process node and foundry differences?

A: Intel uses a 22 nm process at its own foundry, while AMD uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The AMD chip packs 3,500 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, whereas Intel's die size is 118 mm² with no transistor count listed.

Q: What integrated graphics do the two chips feature?

A: The Intel Core i5-3320M includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G features Radeon Vega 3 graphics. Both are integrated solutions, but the AMD part belongs to a newer generation.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel chip posts an average benchmark score of 803, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs. The AMD part scores 797 on average, sitting in the 21st percentile. The difference is less than 1%, effectively a statistical tie.

---

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision, with each processor winning in distinct workload categories. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G takes the single-core crown by a wide margin — its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 888 is 179% higher than the Intel's 318, and it also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (317 vs 227, a 28.4% lead). This makes the AMD part the clear choice for lightly-threaded tasks and legacy multi-threaded benchmarks where per-core efficiency matters most.

However, the Intel Core i5-3320M strikes back in Cinebench R23 multi-core (2258 vs 1842, a 22.6% advantage), indicating that newer multi-threaded workloads may favor the Intel's Ivy Bridge design under certain conditions. The Intel chip also has a slightly higher average benchmark score (803 vs 797) and a marginally better percentile ranking (22nd vs 21st), though these differences are negligible.

Given the benchmark distribution, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G is the better all-rounder for most modern applications, particularly those that leverage single-core performance. The Intel Core i5-3320M remains competitive in specific multi-threaded scenarios and offers a slightly higher average score, but its older architecture shows clear limitations in single-threaded tests. Users prioritizing raw single-threaded speed should select AMD; those targeting specific multi-threaded workloads where Intel leads should consider the i5-3320M.

---

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three head-to-head benchmark results reveal a clear pattern: AMD wins where single-core throughput is paramount, while Intel claims victory in one multi-core test.

Cinebench R23 Single-Core — AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G wins by 64.2%

This is the most decisive result in the comparison. The AMD chip scores 888, dwarfing the Intel's 318. The delta of -64.2% (from Intel's perspective) indicates that the Ryzen Embedded R1606G delivers nearly 2.8 times the single-threaded performance. This gap is far larger than the boost clock difference (3.50 GHz vs 3.30 GHz) would suggest, pointing to architectural advantages in the Zen core design.

Cinebench R15 Multi-Core — AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G wins by 28.4%

In the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, AMD again leads with 317 points versus Intel's 227. The 90-point gap represents a 39.6% improvement for AMD. This result suggests that even in multi-threaded workloads, the AMD chip's per-core efficiency carries the day when the workload is less demanding or scales differently than newer benchmarks.

Cinebench R23 Multi-Core — Intel Core i5-3320M wins by 22.6%

The tables turn in the newer Cinebench R23 multi-core test. Intel scores 2258 versus AMD's 1842, a 416-point advantage. This 22.6% lead is surprising given AMD's dominance elsewhere. The result implies that the Intel chip's architecture handles the more complex multi-threaded workload of R23 better, potentially due to different cache utilization or memory access patterns. Notably, this is the only benchmark where Intel wins, giving it a 1-2 record in head-to-head tests.

The overall scoreboard shows AMD winning 2 out of 3 benchmarks, but the magnitude of Intel's win in R23 multi-core (22.6%) is substantial. AMD's wins are split between a 28.4% margin in R15 multi-core and a 64.2% margin in R23 single-core. The data suggests that AMD is the stronger performer in most scenarios, but Intel retains a niche advantage in certain multi-threaded workloads.

---

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification categories, though they share some fundamentals.

Clock Speeds: Both chips have a 2.60 GHz base clock, but the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G boosts higher at 3.50 GHz versus Intel's 3.30 GHz. This 200 MHz boost advantage contributes to AMD's single-core superiority.

Thermal Design Power: The AMD chip consumes less power at 25 W TDP, while Intel's TDP is 35 W. This 10 W difference makes the AMD part more power-efficient on paper, which is notable for embedded and mobile applications.

Process Node and Foundry: Intel uses a 22 nm process at its own foundry, while AMD uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The AMD chip also lists 3,500 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, whereas Intel's die is smaller at 118 mm² with no transistor count provided.

Socket: Intel uses the BGA 1023 socket, while AMD uses the FP5 socket. These are incompatible, meaning motherboard selection will depend entirely on the chosen processor.

Integrated Graphics: Intel pairs with HD 4000 graphics, while AMD includes Radeon Vega 3. Both are integrated solutions, but they represent different graphics generations and capabilities.

Memory Support: The AMD chip supports DDR4 memory with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while Intel's memory support is not listed in the data. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe Support: AMD lists PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while Intel's PCIe configuration is not specified.

Release Date: Intel launched on 2012-05-31, while AMD arrived on 2020-02-24 — a gap of nearly eight years. AMD's production status is "Active," while Intel's is not specified.

Cache Layout: AMD has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, plus 4 MB shared L3. Intel has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 3 MB shared L3. AMD's larger caches at every level likely contribute to its single-core performance advantage.

---

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans multiple generations and design philosophies.

Core Architecture: Intel is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, which dates to 2012. AMD uses the Zen architecture, specifically the "Banded Kestrel" variant from the Ryzen Embedded 1000 series. Zen represents a ground-up redesign of AMD's CPU cores, emphasizing higher instructions-per-clock (IPC) and better branch prediction compared to older designs.

Process Technology: Intel's 22 nm node was leading-edge in 2012, while AMD's 14 nm node at GlobalFoundries is a more modern process. The smaller process node typically enables lower power consumption and higher transistor density, though Intel's older node allowed for a smaller die size (118 mm² vs 148 mm²).

Cache Hierarchy: AMD's Zen architecture uses a 96 KB L1 cache per core (compared to Intel's 64 KB), a 512 KB L2 per core (versus Intel's 256 KB), and 4 MB shared L3 (versus Intel's 3 MB). These larger caches reduce memory latency and improve data locality, which is particularly beneficial for single-threaded workloads. The cache differences are likely a major factor in AMD's 64.2% single-core lead.

Transistor Count: AMD lists 3,500 million transistors, a figure that reflects the complexity of the Zen design. Intel's transistor count is not provided, but the 22 nm Ivy Bridge architecture is known to be a planar design, whereas Zen uses FinFET transistors, which offer better electrical characteristics.

Memory Controller: AMD supports DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel's memory support is unspecified. DDR4 offers higher bandwidth and lower latency compared to the DDR3-era memory that Ivy Bridge would have supported, though the data does not specify Intel's exact memory type.

PCIe Implementation: AMD provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), which is typical for embedded parts targeting compact systems. Intel's PCIe configuration is not listed, but older architectures typically offered fewer lanes or older standards.

Graphics Architecture: Intel HD 4000 is based on the Ivy Bridge graphics architecture, while Radeon Vega 3 is a modern GPU design. The Vega architecture supports newer graphics features and higher performance, though specific benchmark numbers are not provided in the data.

Production Status: AMD's part is listed as "Active," indicating ongoing availability. Intel's status is not specified, which, combined with its 2012 release date, suggests it may be legacy or end-of-life. This is relevant for system designers planning long-term production runs.

The architectural differences explain the benchmark results: Zen's modern core design, larger caches, and newer process node give AMD a decisive edge in single-threaded performance, while Intel's Ivy Bridge architecture still manages to win in one multi-threaded test, possibly due to different scheduling or memory access behaviors in that specific workload.