AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 vs Intel Core i5-3450 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-3450 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 are both 33rd-percentile performers in the benchmark database, meaning they sit at the same level relative to all other CPUs. That shared percentile, however, masks a consistent performance gap in the head-to-head tests. Across the five comparable Cinebench workloads, the Intel chip wins every single one, with margins ranging from 14.1% to 14.5%. In raw numbers, the i5-3450 scores 387 versus 338 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1613 versus 1410 in R20 multi-core, and 3842 versus 3359 in R23 multi-core. The single-core results tell the same story: the Intel part leads 227 to 199 in R20 single-core and 542 to 474 in R23 single-core. The Ryzen part’s average benchmark score of 1156 is 10 points lower than the Intel’s 1166, and the nearest rival lists confirm they are in the same tier—the i5-3450 sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core i7-3635QM, while the R2312 trades blows with the Intel Core i3-8145UE at a 0.2% delta.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clear, uniform advantage for the Intel Core i5-3450 in every shared benchmark. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel part posts 387 against the AMD’s 338, a 14.5% lead. That pattern repeats almost exactly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i5-3450 scores 1613 and the R2312 scores 1410, a 14.4% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core again shows a 14.4% gap, with scores of 3842 and 3359 respectively. The consistency of these margins—all within 0.1 percentage points of each other—suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-core performance follows the same trajectory. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel chip scores 227 versus the AMD’s 199, a 14.1% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 542 versus 474, a 14.3% margin. Notably, the R2312 has no Cinebench R15 single-core result in the data, so the comparison relies on the two newer tests. Even with that missing data point, the trend is unambiguous: the i5-3450 wins all five head-to-head tests, with zero wins for the Ryzen part.

It is worth interpreting what these numbers mean in context. A 14% lead in multi-core with only two extra physical cores is significant. The i5-3450’s four cores and four threads outpace the R2312’s two cores and four threads by a substantial margin in heavily threaded workloads. The single-core results are more telling, though, because they isolate per-thread efficiency. A 14.1% single-core lead suggests the Ivy Bridge architecture, despite being a decade older, delivers better IPC per clock than the Zen+ design in these specific tests. Both CPUs boost to 3.50 GHz, so the clock speed is identical; the difference comes down to architectural efficiency.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The i5-3450’s average of 1166 places it just below the AMD Opteron 6220 (1168, -0.2%) and the Intel Core i5-3570S (1169, -0.2%). The R2312’s average of 1156 sits near the AMD Opteron 4334 (1155, 0.1%) and the Intel Core i3-8145UE (1154, 0.2%). In short, the Intel part is competitive with quad-core Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge mobile chips, while the AMD part trades blows with low-power embedded and mobile parts. The 10-point average gap is small, but the head-to-head deltas show that gap is consistent and not a statistical artifact.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core i5-3450 is the faster processor in every measured workload. If raw performance is the only criterion, the i5-3450 is the clear choice. It delivers 14.1% to 14.5% higher scores across all Cinebench versions, both single-core and multi-core. There is no benchmark in the dataset where the Ryzen Embedded R2312 pulls ahead.

That said, the Ryzen part is not without merit. It is an active production part, whereas the i5-3450 is end-of-life. The R2312 also carries a dramatically lower TDP of 15 watts versus 77 watts, and it supports ECC memory, which the Intel does not. For an embedded or low-power application, the R2312’s 15-watt envelope and ECC support could outweigh its 14% performance deficit. For a desktop user who already has an LGA 1155 motherboard or wants maximum compute throughput, the i5-3450 wins outright.

The percentile rankings are identical at 33, so both chips are equally positioned in the broader market. But within this direct comparison, the i5-3450 is the stronger performer. Pick the Intel part if you need speed and the AMD part if you need low power consumption and ECC memory support.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3450 wins in every benchmark category measured here. That includes multi-threaded rendering workloads like Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, where its four physical cores provide a clear advantage. It also wins in single-threaded tests, which is more surprising given the R2312’s newer architecture. The i5-3450 is the better choice for any task that relies on CPU throughput, whether that is rendering, encoding, or general desktop responsiveness.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 wins in areas not captured by the benchmark scores. Its 15-watt TDP is a massive efficiency advantage over the i5-3450’s 77 watts, making it suitable for passively cooled or fanless embedded systems. It supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not, and it uses DDR4 memory with a higher theoretical bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s versus the Intel’s 25.6 GB/s with DDR3. The R2312 is also an active production part, so it remains available for new designs, while the i5-3450 is discontinued.

For a use-case split: choose the i5-3450 for desktop workloads where performance matters and power consumption is secondary. Choose the R2312 for embedded systems, industrial PCs, or any scenario where the 15-watt TDP, ECC support, or DDR4 compatibility are hard requirements.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i5-3450 is faster in every multi-core test. It leads by 14.5% in Cinebench R15 (387 vs 338), 14.4% in R20 (1613 vs 1410), and 14.4% in R23 (3842 vs 3359).

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The i5-3450 also wins single-core tests. It scores 227 versus 199 in Cinebench R20 single-core (14.1% lead) and 542 versus 474 in Cinebench R23 single-core (14.3% lead).

Q: Do both CPUs have the same clock speed?

A: Yes, both have a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The base clocks differ, with the i5-3450 at 3.10 GHz and the R2312 at 2.70 GHz.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-3450 does not.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The R2312 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the i5-3450 has a TDP of 77 watts. The AMD part uses significantly less power.

Q: Is the Ryzen part still in production?

A: Yes, the R2312 is listed as active production status. The i5-3450 is end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The Intel Core i5-3450 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. It has 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 uses the Zen+ architecture, specifically the Picasso codename, on a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die—more than triple the transistor count and a larger die overall.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The i5-3450 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The R2312 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and only 4 MB of shared L3. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD part has more per-core cache at every level except L3, where the Intel part has 50% more shared cache.

Memory support is a major division. The Intel chip uses DDR3 with dual-channel support and a theoretical bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The AMD chip uses DDR4, also dual-channel, but with a higher theoretical bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The R2312 supports ECC memory, while the i5-3450 does not. The integrated graphics also differ: Intel HD 2500 on the i5-3450 versus Radeon Vega 3 on the R2312, though neither is benchmarked in this data.

The process node difference is significant: 22 nm versus 12 nm. That newer node, combined with a much higher transistor count, allows the AMD part to achieve its 15-watt TDP. The Intel part, with its older process and four cores, requires 77 watts. The PCIe support also differs, with the Intel chip offering Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) and the AMD chip offering Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious difference. The i5-3450 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the R2312 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Both have the same 3.50 GHz boost clock, but the base clocks differ: 3.10 GHz for Intel versus 2.70 GHz for AMD. The TDP gap is enormous, at 77 watts versus 15 watts.

Socket compatibility is entirely separate. The Intel part uses LGA 1155, while the AMD part uses Socket FP5. The process node differs (22 nm vs 12 nm), and the foundries are different (Intel vs GlobalFoundries). Transistor counts and die sizes are also very different, as detailed above.

Cache specifications differ at every level: L1 is 64 KB per core on Intel versus 96 KB per core on AMD; L2 is 256 KB per core versus 512 KB per core; L3 is 6 MB shared versus 4 MB shared. Memory support differs by generation (DDR3 vs DDR4), bandwidth (25.6 GB/s vs 38.4 GB/s), and ECC capability (false vs true). PCIe lanes differ (16 vs 8, both Gen 3). The i5-3450 has a launch MSRP of $174, while the R2312 has no launch MSRP listed. Production status differs: end-of-life for Intel, active for AMD. Release dates are a decade apart: April 2012 for the i5-3450 and June 2022 for the R2312.