AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B vs Intel Core i5-4440 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B and Intel Core i5-4440 are two 4-core desktop-class processors that land nearly side by side in the database's overall rankings, yet the recorded benchmark data shows they get there by very different routes. The V1605B wins three of four head-to-head tests, including a crushing single-core advantage in Cinebench R15, while the i5-4440 takes a decisive multi-core win in Cinebench R23. Average scores are almost identical, 1196 for the AMD part versus 1179 for the Intel part, and both sit at nearly the same percentile against all CPUs in the database, 34 versus 33. The interesting story is not the averages: it is how sharply the individual results diverge depending on the workload and the benchmark generation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single-core results belong to the Ryzen Embedded V1605B in every test recorded. In Cinebench R15 single-core it scores 128 against 57 for the Core i5-4440, a gap of 124.6 percent, more than double the Intel chip's score. The R23 single-core test narrows that margin but keeps the same winner: 841 versus 575, a 46.3 percent advantage for the AMD processor. Benchmark results indicate that any workload dominated by per-thread performance, one active thread at a time, favors the V1605B clearly.

Multi-core results split the verdict. In Cinebench R15 multi-core the V1605B scores 654 against 410, a 59.5 percent win for AMD. Flip to Cinebench R23 multi-core and the outcome reverses: the i5-4440 scores 4077 against 3160, a 22.5 percent win for Intel. That inversion between R15 and R23 is unusual and worth flagging. The data shows two chips with the same core count trading multi-core leads depending on the test version, which makes workload-specific results far more informative here than any single aggregate number.

The i5-4440 also holds two recorded results the V1605B does not, Cinebench R20 multi-core at 1712 and single-core at 241, so the R20 suite has no direct comparison in the database. On the tests where both chips have entries, the tally is 3 wins to 1 in AMD's favor.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these processors is generational and philosophical. The V1605B is built on AMD's Zen architecture on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 4 cores and 8 threads enabled through simultaneous multithreading. The i5-4440 uses Intel's Haswell architecture on a 22 nm Intel process, with 4 cores and only 4 threads. That threading difference is the most consequential spec on the sheet: the AMD chip can execute twice the thread count, which is the likeliest explanation for its large R15 multi-core lead and its strong showing in heavily threaded tests.

Cache design favors each chip in different tiers. The V1605B carries more cache close to the cores, 128 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, against 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core for the i5-4440. Intel counters with a much larger shared L3, 6 MB versus 2 MB on the AMD part.

Power and packaging could not be more different. The V1605B is a 15 W TDP part on AMD Socket FP5, while the i5-4440 runs at 84 W TDP on Intel Socket 1150. The Intel chip clocks higher on paper, 3.10 base and 3.30 boost, versus 2000 MHz base and 3.60 boost for the AMD part, yet the recorded single-core scores favor the V1605B decisively, showing that clock speed alone does not predict results across different architectures.

Memory support also divides them. The V1605B supports DDR4 on a dual-channel bus; the i5-4440 supports DDR3, also dual-channel. Neither supports ECC memory. On connectivity, the i5-4440 lists PCIe Gen 3 while the V1605B has no PCIe data recorded. For integrated graphics, the AMD part pairs Radeon Vega 8 with the CPU and the Intel part uses HD 4600. The physical implementations differ too: the AMD die measures 210 mm² with 4,950 million transistors, while the Intel die is 177 mm² with 1,400 million transistors. The V1605B's die is newer by several years, with a recorded release date of February 2018 against August 2013 for the i5-4440, and its production status is listed as Active.

Where Each One Wins

The V1605B wins latency-sensitive and single-threaded work. Any application where one fast thread does the heavy lifting, and where per-core responsiveness matters, plays directly to its 124.6 percent R15 single-core lead and 46.3 percent R23 single-core lead. Its 8-thread capability also makes it the stronger choice for threaded workloads as measured by R15, where it leads by 59.5 percent. The 15 W TDP envelope additionally suits designs where thermals constrain what can be installed, since the i5-4440 demands a far higher power budget at 84 W.

The i5-4440 wins modern sustained multi-core rendering as measured by Cinebench R23, where its 4077 score beats the V1605B's 3160 by 22.5 percent. Its larger 6 MB shared L3 cache may help in workloads with big working sets, and its PCIe Gen 3 support is a recorded advantage where the AMD part lists none. For tasks that resemble the R23 multi-core profile specifically, the Intel chip is the measurably faster option.

Context from the rivals list reinforces how evenly matched they are overall. The V1605B's nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 3365 and Athlon PRO 300U plus Intel's Core i3-4170 and Core i7-8665UE, all within 0.3 percent of its average score. The i5-4440's rivals, the Core i5-3550, i3-7320, i5-2400, and i7-3635QM, sit within roughly one percent. Both chips occupy the same performance neighborhood on average, so the decision comes down to workload shape, not overall rank.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B, decisively. It scores 128 versus 57 in Cinebench R15 single-core, a 124.6 percent lead, and 841 versus 575 in R23 single-core, a 46.3 percent lead.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-4440 win any benchmark?

A: Yes. It wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 4077 points against 3160, a 22.5 percent advantage for the Intel chip.

Q: How do their overall database scores compare?

A: They are nearly identical. The V1605B averages 1196 against 1179 for the i5-4440, and their percentiles against all CPUs are 34 and 33 respectively.

Q: How big is the power consumption difference?

A: The V1605B is rated at 15 W TDP while the i5-4440 is rated at 84 W TDP, a substantial gap that favors the AMD part in thermally constrained designs.

Q: Do both chips support 8 threads?

A: No. The V1605B offers 4 cores and 8 threads. The i5-4440 offers 4 cores and 4 threads only.

Q: What memory does each processor support?

A: The V1605B supports DDR4 and the i5-4440 supports DDR3, both on dual-channel buses. Neither supports ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data favors the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B for most use cases. It wins three of four head-to-head benchmarks, dominates every single-core test recorded, and delivers its performance inside a 15 W envelope versus 84 W for the Intel part. Buyers whose workloads are single-thread bound, mixed, or thermally constrained should pick the V1605B based on these results. The Core i5-4440 earns its place only where the workload mirrors Cinebench R23 multi-core specifically: sustained, modern multi-core rendering where its 4077 score gives it a 22.5 percent edge. Since the two chips' average scores differ by barely more than one percent, there is no blanket winner: match the chip to the benchmark that resembles your actual workload.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B | Intel Core i5-4440 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Zen | Haswell |

| Process Node | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 22 nm (Intel) |

| Cores / Threads | 4 / 8 | 4 / 4 |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 84 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP5 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| L1 Cache | 128 KB per core | 64 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB per core | 256 KB per core |

| L3 Cache | 2 MB shared | 6 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 3 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Vega 8 | Intel HD 4600 |

| Transistors | 4,950 million | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | 210 mm² | 177 mm² |

| Release Date | 2018-02-20 | 2013-08-31 |

| Production Status | Active | Not recorded |