AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B vs Intel Core i3-4160 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is straightforward: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B wins every recorded head-to-head test against the Intel Core i3-4160. Across five Cinebench comparisons, the AMD part takes all five wins, with the Intel chip recording zero victories. The margins are narrow in every case, but the pattern is consistent, which matters for workload selection.

For multi-threaded rendering tasks, the Ryzen Embedded V1202B holds a small but repeatable advantage. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 300 versus 297 for the Core i3-4160, a 1% lead. That same 1% margin appears again in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the AMD chip posts 1253 against 1241. The R23 multicore test shows the same story: 2985 versus 2955, again a 1% difference. If your work involves sustained multi-core rendering, the data points to the AMD part as the safer pick, though the gap is not going to transform render times in any meaningful way.

Single-threaded performance follows the same trend, but with an even smaller edge. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the V1202B scores 176 versus 175, a 0.6% difference. The R23 single-core test shows 421 versus 417, a 1% lead. For everyday responsive tasks, web browsing, or light office work, the difference is effectively imperceptible. The AMD part wins on paper, but the real-world impact of a 1% single-thread delta is negligible.

It is importantly neither chip is positioned as a performance leader in the broader database. Both sit at the 28th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close: 1027 for the AMD part versus 1017 for the Intel part. The AMD chip's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-5650U at an identical average score of 1027, and the Intel Core i3-4340 at 1026. The Intel Core i3-4160, meanwhile, sits near the Core i5-2300 (1014, 0.3% ahead) and the Core i3-4330 (1020, 0.3% behind). These are entry-level desktop parts by modern standards, and the wins here are measured in single-digit percentage points.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B is built on the Zen architecture, using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It is part of the Ryzen Embedded 1000 series, codenamed "Great Horned Owl," and was released in February 2018. The Intel Core i3-4160 uses the Haswell architecture on Intel's 22 nm process, released in July 2014. That is a four-year gap in design, which explains some of the efficiency differences noted below.

The cache layouts differ notably. The AMD chip provides 128 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 2 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has smaller per-core caches: 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2, but it compensates with a larger shared L3 pool of 3 MB. For workloads that benefit from a bigger last-level cache, the Intel part has the nominal advantage, even though the benchmarks do not show it converting into wins.

Memory support is a clear generational split. The AMD part uses DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, while the Intel part is limited to DDR3, also dual-channel. The AMD part is soldered to the AMD Socket FP5 platform, whereas the Intel chip uses the Socket 1150. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Integrated graphics are present on both, but they differ. The AMD chip includes Radeon Vega 3 graphics, while the Intel chip has Intel HD 4400. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, but the presence of Vega 3 on the AMD side suggests a more modern GPU architecture for basic display output.

Power and thermal characteristics are where the gap is largest. The AMD V1202B has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel Core i3-4160 is rated at 54 watts. That is a 39-watt difference, more than a 3.5x thermal envelope advantage for the AMD part. The Intel chip also has no boost clock, running at a fixed 3.60 GHz base, whereas the AMD part runs at 2.30 GHz base with a 3.20 GHz boost. The Intel chip compensates for its higher power draw with a much higher base clock, but the AMD part achieves comparable benchmark scores at a fraction of the power budget.

The process node difference is also significant: 14 nm for AMD versus 22 nm for Intel. The AMD chip integrates 4,950 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, while the Intel chip has 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The AMD part is larger and denser, reflecting its newer manufacturing process and the Zen architecture's design choices.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B, but the margins are tight enough that the Intel chip is never embarrassed. The largest single victory for the AMD part is a 1% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore, and R23 multicore, with the R23 single-core test also at 1%. The smallest margin is the R20 single-core test, where the AMD part leads by just 0.6%.

Starting with multicore, the Cinebench R15 test puts the V1202B at 300 versus 297 for the Core i3-4160. That is a three-point difference, which is within the noise range for most real-world rendering workloads. The R20 multicore test shows a similar pattern: 1253 versus 1241, a twelve-point gap. The R23 multicore test, which is the most demanding of the three, shows 2985 versus 2955, a thirty-point gap. The relative margin stays at 1% across all three, which suggests the AMD part's advantage is consistent rather than workload-specific.

Single-core results are even closer. In R20 single-core, the AMD chip scores 176 versus 175, a single point. In R23 single-core, it scores 421 versus 417, a four-point gap. Both translate to roughly a 0.6% to 1% lead. For any single-threaded task, from spreadsheet calculations to older games that rely on one core, these two chips will feel identical in practice.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The AMD part's average is 1027, with its nearest rival being the Intel Core i7-5650U at exactly 1027. The Intel Core i3-4160 has an average of 1017, placing it 0.3% behind the Core i5-2300 and 0.3% ahead of the Core i3-4330. The 10-point average score difference between the two chips in question is small, but it is consistent with the AMD part winning every head-to-head test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 300 versus 297 in Cinebench R15, 1253 versus 1241 in R20, and 2985 versus 2955 in R23. The margin is 1% in each case.

Q: Is the Intel Core i3-4160 competitive in single-threaded workloads?

A: Yes, it is very close. The Intel chip scores 175 versus 176 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 417 versus 421 in R23 single-core. The AMD part leads by only 0.6% to 1%, so the two are effectively equal for single-threaded tasks.

Q: How do these chips compare in power consumption?

A: The AMD part has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel chip is rated at 54 watts. The AMD processor delivers comparable or slightly better benchmark scores while drawing significantly less power, making it the more efficient choice for compact or thermally constrained systems.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Neither the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B nor the Intel Core i3-4160 supports ECC memory, according to the database records.

Q: Which chip has a higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-4160 runs at a fixed 3.60 GHz base clock with no boost. The AMD part runs at 2.30 GHz base and boosts to 3.20 GHz. Despite the lower clocks, the AMD chip matches or slightly exceeds the Intel chip in all recorded benchmarks.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: Both are listed as "Active" in the database. The AMD part was released in February 2018, and the Intel part was released in July 2014.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in nearly every architectural specification. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, while the Intel Core i3-4160 uses Haswell on Intel's 22 nm process. The AMD part has a 15 watt TDP versus 54 watts for the Intel chip. The AMD part runs at 2.30 GHz base with a 3.20 GHz boost, while the Intel chip has a fixed 3.60 GHz clock with no boost.

Cache configurations differ: the AMD chip has 128 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with 2 MB shared L3. The Intel chip has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 3 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 for AMD and DDR3 for Intel, both dual-channel. The AMD part uses Socket FP5, while the Intel part uses Socket 1150. The AMD chip has Radeon Vega 3 integrated graphics, while the Intel chip has Intel HD 4400. The AMD part has 4,950 million transistors on a 210 mm² die; the Intel chip has 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The AMD part supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Intel part's PCIe capability is not listed in the database.

Both chips have 2 cores and 4 threads, neither has ECC support, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, recommendation for the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B. It wins every recorded benchmark, and it does so while consuming 15 watts versus 54 watts for the Intel Core i3-4160. For anyone building a system where power draw, heat output, or cooling requirements matter, the AMD part is the obvious choice. A 15-watt processor can be cooled by a small, quiet heatsink, and it will fit in mini-ITX or embedded chassis where a 54-watt chip would struggle.

The benchmark advantage is real but modest. A 1% lead in multi-core and single-core tests is not going to change your experience in most applications. If you are upgrading from an older system and already own a Socket 1150 motherboard with DDR3 memory, the Intel Core i3-4160 remains a perfectly serviceable part. Its 3.60 GHz fixed clock gives it predictable performance, and it matches the AMD chip within a few points in every test.

The deciding factor should be platform, not raw performance. If you are starting fresh, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B offers comparable performance with vastly lower power consumption and modern DDR4 memory support. If you are reusing existing DDR3 parts and a Haswell-era motherboard, the Intel chip is not a bad choice, but the data shows it loses every head-to-head test. The AMD part is the safer recommendation for new builds, especially where efficiency matters. For pure compute performance, the two are effectively tied, and the 28th percentile ranking for both chips confirms they sit in the same performance class. The AMD chip simply does more with less power.