AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 vs Intel Core i7-3840QM Comparison

The Intel Core i7-3840QM and AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 are separated by a razor-thin margin in the aggregate, with average benchmark scores of 1416 and 1415, respectively. This places both in the 37th percentile of all CPUs, and the data reveals a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the Intel part across every single benchmark in the comparison. The margins are almost uniformly around one percent, suggesting that while the older Ivy Bridge architecture can still hold its own, the newer Zen+ design is never far behind. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 498 against 493 for the AMD, a 1% lead, while in the single-core test, the gap widens slightly to 1.4% (70 vs 69). The pattern holds in Cinebench R20, where the Intel wins multi-core by 1.2% (2079 vs 2055) and single-core by 1.4% (293 vs 289). The most demanding test, Cinebench R23, shows the Intel part ahead by 1.2% in multi-core (4952 vs 4893) and 1.3% in single-core (699 vs 690). The Intel i7-3840QM wins all six head-to-head matchups, yet the deltas are so small that they fall within the margin of typical run-to-run variance, making the overall performance picture essentially a statistical tie.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-3840QM has an average benchmark score of 1416, which is just one point higher than the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314’s 1415. This gives the Intel part a marginal edge of 0.1% over its rival.

Q: How does the Ryzen Embedded R2314 compare to the Core i7-3840QM in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-3840QM scores 4952 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 scores 4893. This represents a 1.2% performance advantage for the Intel processor in this test.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 comes out ahead?

A: No. According to the head-to-head data, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 loses all six benchmark comparisons, with its closest result being a 1% deficit in Cinebench R15 multi-core (493 vs 498).

Q: What is the difference in thread count between the two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core i7-3840QM supports 8 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 supports only 4 threads. Both have 4 physical cores.

Q: How do these two CPUs compare to the Intel Core i7-2700K?

A: The Intel Core i7-3840QM has an average score of 1416, which is 0.2% lower than the Intel Core i7-2700K’s 1419. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314, with an average score of 1415, trails the i7-2700K by 0.3%.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 supports ECC memory, whereas the Intel Core i7-3840QM does not list ECC support in its specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by a decade of silicon evolution. The Intel Core i7-3840QM is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture using a 22 nm process at Intel’s foundry, packing 1,400 million transistors into a 160 mm² die. In contrast, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 leverages the Zen+ architecture (codename Picasso) on a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with a significantly larger 210 mm² die containing 4,940 million transistors. The transistor density difference is stark: the AMD part crams over three times as many transistors into a die that is only about 31% larger by area. The Intel chip features a per-core L1 cache of 64 KB and L2 cache of 256 KB, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part counters with larger per-core caches at 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2, but a smaller 4 MB L3 cache. This trade-off suggests AMD prioritizes faster access to per-core data, while Intel’s larger L3 pool may benefit workloads that share data across cores. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 also includes a PCIe Gen 3 interface with 16 lanes (CPU only), a feature not specified for the Intel part, and supports DDR4 memory with a rated bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s.

The integrated graphics also differ substantially. Intel pairs the i7-3840QM with the HD 4000 GPU, while AMD integrates the Radeon Vega 6. Both are capable of basic display output, but the architectural gap suggests the Vega solution is far more modern. The AMD chip is marked as "Active" in production status, while the Intel part has no production status listed, hinting at its legacy position. The market segments also differ: Intel targets mobile with a 45 W TDP, while AMD positions the R2314 as a desktop part with a 15 W TDP. This power disparity is one of the most telling architectural differences, as the AMD chip achieves near-identical performance at one-third the thermal envelope. The Intel part’s boost clock of 3.80 GHz is higher than AMD’s 3.50 GHz, yet the AMD still manages to keep pace in every test, pointing to a more efficient instruction pipeline in the newer Zen+ design.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal clear divergences beyond the core architecture. The Intel Core i7-3840QM operates with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 runs at a lower 2.10 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The most dramatic difference is in TDP: Intel consumes 45 W, while AMD sips just 15 W. This makes the AMD part far more suitable for fanless or passively cooled embedded systems. The sockets are incompatible, with Intel using BGA 1224 and AMD using Socket FP5. Memory support differs significantly—Intel uses DDR3 with dual-channel configuration, while AMD uses DDR4 with dual-channel and an explicit 42.7 GB/s bandwidth rating. ECC memory is supported on the AMD chip but not on the Intel chip, a critical feature for reliability-focused embedded workloads.

The cache hierarchy diverges as noted: Intel provides 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core with 8 MB shared L3, whereas AMD provides 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 4 MB shared L3. The manufacturing process differs (22 nm vs 12 nm), and the foundry is different (Intel vs GlobalFoundries). The transistor count and die size are also distinct, with AMD using 4,940 million transistors on 210 mm² versus Intel’s 1,400 million on 160 mm². The AMD part lists a PCIe Gen 3, 16-lane interface (CPU only), while the Intel specification omits PCIe details entirely. The integrated graphics are different (Intel HD 4000 vs Radeon Vega 6). Production status differs, with AMD marked as Active and Intel having no status. The release dates are far apart, with Intel launching in September 2012 and AMD in June 2022. The AMD part includes a 2000 series designation and carries the part number YE2314C4T4MFH, while Intel’s part number is SR0UU. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a curious case: a 2012-era mobile processor from Intel and a 2022-era embedded desktop processor from AMD deliver virtually identical performance. The Intel Core i7-3840QM wins every single head-to-head test, but the margins are so slim—never exceeding 1.4%—that real-world application performance would be indistinguishable. The deciding factors must therefore come from outside the raw Cinebench and Geekbench scores. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 offers a massive efficiency advantage with its 15 W TDP versus Intel’s 45 W, making it the clear choice for thermally constrained embedded designs. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, which is often a hard requirement for server, networking, and industrial applications where data integrity is paramount. The Intel chip counters with 8 threads versus AMD’s 4, which could provide a slight edge in heavily threaded workloads that are not perfectly represented by these benchmarks, though the data does not show this advantage materializing in the Cinebench multi-core tests. The AMD part supports newer DDR4 memory and has a specified memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the Intel part is limited to DDR3. For a system builder prioritizing longevity, modern memory, ECC support, and low power draw, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 is the rational choice. For a pure performance comparison based strictly on the benchmark scores, the Intel Core i7-3840QM holds a nominal, though practically negligible, lead.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-3840QM wins in every measured performance category, yet these wins are so narrow that they define the competitive landscape rather than dominate it. The largest margin of victory is 1.4%, achieved in both Cinebench R15 single-core (70 vs 69) and Cinebench R20 single-core (293 vs 289). This Intel advantage in single-threaded tasks suggests its higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz provides a small but consistent edge in lightly threaded applications. The Intel chip also wins all three multi-core tests, with margins between 1% and 1.2%. In aggregate, the Intel part’s average score of 1416 is 0.1% higher than AMD’s 1415. The Intel chip benefits from 8 threads versus AMD’s 4, which may help in scenarios where the operating system can schedule additional threads, even if the Cinebench results do not show a dramatic difference. The Intel part also has a larger L3 cache at 8 MB versus 4 MB, which could benefit cache-sensitive workloads that share data across cores.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 wins in the areas that matter for its target market. Its 15 W TDP is one-third of Intel’s 45 W, making it the clear winner for embedded systems where heat dissipation and power budgets are critical. The AMD chip supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Intel part, which is a decisive win for reliability-focused applications. The AMD part uses DDR4 memory with a specified 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part is limited to DDR3 without a bandwidth specification, making AMD the winner in memory technology and potential bandwidth capacity. The AMD chip also has a smaller process node (12 nm vs 22 nm) and a larger transistor count (4,940 million vs 1,400 million), indicating a more modern and potentially more feature-rich design. The AMD part’s Radeon Vega 6 integrated graphics are likely superior to Intel’s HD 4000, though the benchmark data does not include graphics tests. Finally, the AMD part is listed as Active in production, ensuring availability for new designs, while the Intel part’s production status is not listed, suggesting it may be end-of-life. For embedded system designers, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 wins on power, memory support, ECC, and production longevity, even if it loses the raw performance benchmarks by a hair.