AMD Ryzen Embedded R2544 vs Intel Core i3-9350KF Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2544 and Intel Core i3-9350KF are both quad-core desktop processors, yet they deliver distinctly different performance profiles. Benchmark data from Cinebench reveals a consistent pattern: the AMD part wins every single head-to-head test, with margins ranging from 13.3% to 13.6% across both single-core and multi-core workloads. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical—2086 for the AMD versus 2082 for the Intel—placing both in the 46th percentile of all CPUs, but the distribution of that performance favors the Ryzen Embedded part in every measured scenario.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the uniformity of the AMD advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the R2544 scores 726 against the i3-9350KF’s 640, a 13.4% lead. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 102 versus 90, a 13.3% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the AMD part posts 3029 multi-core and 427 single-core, while the Intel part manages 2667 and 376 respectively—both representing a 13.6% gap. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23, where the R2544 achieves 7213 multi-core and 1018 single-core, against 6352 and 896 for the i3-9350KF, again a 13.6% difference.

These deltas are remarkably consistent across all six head-to-head tests. The AMD processor wins 6 out of 6 benchmarks, with no single test where the Intel part closes the gap. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The single-core results are particularly telling: despite the Intel chip’s higher base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost clock of 4.60 GHz, the AMD part with its 3.35 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost still leads by over 13% in every single-threaded test. This indicates the Zen+ architecture extracts more instructions per clock than Coffee Lake in these workloads.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the closeness of the overall package. The R2544’s average of 2086 is a mere 0.2% above the i3-9350KF’s 2082. This near-tie in aggregate metrics, contrasted with the decisive head-to-head sweep, highlights that the Intel part’s additional Geekbench scores—4098 multi-core and 1534 single-core—are not enough to offset its Cinebench deficits. The nearestRivals data confirms this: the Xeon W-2123 sits 0.3% above the Intel part, while the Ryzen 7 1700X sits 0.4% above the AMD part, placing both processors in a tightly clustered performance band.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2544 has an average benchmark score of 2086, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core i3-9350KF’s 2082. This places the AMD part slightly ahead, though both sit in the 46th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD R2544 winning all six Cinebench tests, with the Intel i3-9350KF recording zero wins. The Intel part’s closest margin is a 13.3% deficit in Cinebench R15 single-core.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: Both processors have 4 cores, but the AMD R2544 supports 8 threads via simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel i3-9350KF has only 4 threads total. This doubling of thread count likely contributes to the AMD’s multi-core lead.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Intel i3-9350KF has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The AMD R2544 runs at a 3.35 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. Despite the Intel’s higher clocks, the AMD part wins all clock-sensitive single-core tests.

Q: Which processor has a higher power draw?

A: The Intel i3-9350KF has a TDP of 91 watts, while the AMD R2544 has a TDP of 45 watts. The AMD part delivers superior performance while consuming less than half the thermal design power.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The AMD R2544 has an “Active” production status, while the Intel i3-9350KF is marked as “End-of-life.” The Intel part launched on 2019-01-07, while the AMD part was released later on 2022-09-29.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD R2544 uses the Zen+ architecture with the Picasso codename, manufactured on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel i3-9350KF employs the Coffee Lake architecture (specifically Coffee Lake Refresh), built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own fabs. This node difference—12 nm versus 14 nm—gives the AMD part a slight manufacturing advantage, though both are mature processes.

The transistor counts and die sizes differ substantially. The AMD R2544 packs 4,940 million transistors into a 210 mm² die, while the Intel i3-9350KF has no listed transistor count but uses a 126 mm² die. The AMD’s larger die accommodates its integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, whereas the Intel part has no integrated graphics at all. This is a notable feature split: the R2544 can output video without a discrete GPU, while the i3-9350KF requires one.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The AMD R2544 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel i3-9350KF has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has twice the L3 cache, but the AMD part has larger L1 and L2 caches per core, which may explain its single-core efficiency despite lower clocks.

Memory support shows another architectural distinction. Both support DDR4 and dual-channel memory, but the AMD R2544 achieves a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s versus the Intel’s 38.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is unusual for a consumer i3 and reflects the embedded positioning of both parts. The PCIe implementation is identical on paper: Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is thread count. The AMD R2544 offers 8 threads from 4 cores, while the Intel i3-9350KF offers only 4 threads. This doubling provides the AMD part with a clear multi-threading advantage in heavily parallel workloads.

Clock speeds favor the Intel part on paper. The i3-9350KF has a 4.00 GHz base clock and 4.60 GHz boost, compared to the AMD’s 3.35 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The Intel chip runs 0.65 GHz higher at base and 0.90 GHz higher at boost, yet it loses every benchmark—proof of the AMD architecture’s higher instructions per clock.

Thermal design power differs dramatically. The Intel i3-9350KF is rated at 91 watts TDP, while the AMD R2544 is rated at 45 watts. This 46-watt difference means the AMD part generates significantly less heat and requires a less aggressive cooling solution.

The socket and platform are incompatible. The AMD R2544 uses AMD Socket FP5, while the Intel i3-9350KF uses Intel Socket 1151. This means motherboard choice is mutually exclusive, and the embedded nature of the AMD part suggests a different target platform than the desktop-focused Intel chip.

Production status also differs. The AMD R2544 is listed as “Active” with a release date of 2022-09-29, while the Intel i3-9350KF is “End-of-life” with a release date of 2019-01-07. The AMD part is three years newer and still in production, while the Intel part has been discontinued.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD R2544 wins every measured benchmark, making it the clear choice for raw compute performance in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. Its 13.6% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core (7213 versus 6352) suggests it handles rendering, compilation, and other parallel tasks more effectively. The single-core wins (1018 versus 896 in R23) indicate that even lightly threaded applications like web browsing or office productivity will feel snappier on the AMD part.

The Intel i3-9350KF has no benchmark wins to claim, but it does have the advantage of a higher clock speed profile (4.00 GHz base, 4.60 GHz boost) that could theoretically benefit workloads not captured in the Cinebench suite. However, the data shows no such benefit in any measured test. The Intel part also has a larger L3 cache (8 MB versus 4 MB), which might help in cache-sensitive applications, but again, no benchmark confirms this advantage.

For integrated graphics, the AMD R2544 includes Radeon Vega 8, making it a complete package for systems without a discrete GPU. The Intel i3-9350KF has no integrated graphics, requiring a separate video card for any display output. This makes the AMD part more versatile for embedded or compact systems.

Power efficiency is another clear AMD win. With a 45-watt TDP versus the Intel’s 91 watts, the R2544 delivers superior performance while drawing less than half the power. This is critical for embedded applications, thermal-constrained enclosures, or systems with limited power budgets.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous picture: the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2544 outperforms the Intel Core i3-9350KF in every measured benchmark, with consistent 13.3% to 13.6% margins across single-core and multi-core workloads. The AMD part achieves this while offering more threads (8 versus 4), integrated graphics, lower power consumption (45 watts versus 91 watts), and a newer production status. The Intel part’s only paper advantages are higher clock speeds and a larger L3 cache, neither of which translates into a single benchmark win.

Buyers should choose the AMD R2544 if they need the best available performance in Cinebench workloads, require integrated graphics, or operate under strict power or thermal limits. The Intel i3-9350KF is a viable option only if the platform (Socket 1151) is already a constraint, or if the end-of-life status and higher clocks are acceptable trade-offs for a legacy system. For any new design or upgrade, the data clearly favors the AMD part, which is also still actively produced. Both processors sit in the 46th percentile of all CPUs, so neither is a top-tier performer, but within this head-to-head comparison, the AMD R2544 is the definitive winner.