AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B vs Intel Core i5-8400H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B and Intel Core i5-8400H are both 45 W, four-core, eight-thread processors aimed at compact systems, but benchmark data shows a consistent performance gap between them. Across the entire Cinebench suite, the AMD part wins every single test, with margins that remain remarkably stable between 8.8% and 9.0%. This uniformity suggests a fundamental clock-for-clock or architectural efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Intel chip, meanwhile, counters with a higher boost clock and a much larger L3 cache, yet the data shows it cannot translate those specifications into benchmark victories.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the consistency of the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B’s victories. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD chip scores 701 against Intel’s 644, a delta of 8.9%. The single-core test in R15 shows the exact same margin, with AMD at 98 and Intel at 90. This is not a case of the AMD part winning on multi-threaded scaling alone; it wins by the same proportion when only a single core is active.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the margins hold steady. The multi-core score for AMD is 2921 versus Intel’s 2684, a delta of 8.8%. In single-core, AMD posts 412 against Intel’s 378, which translates to a 9.0% advantage — the largest margin in the entire comparison. This slight increase in the single-core delta suggests that the AMD architecture’s per-thread performance is the primary driver of its overall lead.

The newest test, Cinebench R23, continues the trend. AMD’s multi-core score of 6957 beats Intel’s 6392 by 8.8%, while the single-core result sees AMD at 982 and Intel at 902, an 8.9% gap. Across all six benchmarks, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B wins outright, and the deltas never dip below 8.8%. For a head-to-head comparison, this is an unusually clean sweep — the Intel Core i5-8400H fails to claim a single test.

It is importantly the Intel chip’s boost clock of 4.10 GHz is higher than the AMD part’s 3.80 GHz. Despite this, the AMD chip still achieves a 9.0% lead in R20 single-core. This implies that the Zen architecture in the V1807B executes instructions more efficiently per clock cycle in this workload. The Intel part’s larger 12 MB shared L3 cache, compared to AMD’s 2 MB, also fails to provide a compensating benefit in Cinebench’s rendering tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B wins in every benchmark category that was tested. In multi-core workloads, such as rendering or video encoding that scale with thread count, the AMD chip’s lead is 8.8% to 8.9% across R15, R20, and R23. This means that for a user running a long render job, the AMD processor would complete the task measurably faster, assuming all other system components are equal.

The single-core results are equally one-sided. The AMD part leads by 8.9% in R15 and R23, and by 9.0% in R20. This is significant for applications like games or older software that rely on one or two high-frequency threads. Despite the Intel chip’s higher 4.10 GHz boost clock, the AMD chip’s lower 3.80 GHz boost clock still delivers superior single-thread performance in Cinebench, indicating a strong IPC advantage.

There are no benchmark categories where the Intel Core i5-8400H emerges as a winner. The data shows zero wins for Intel across the six head-to-head tests. However, the Intel chip does have a notable specification advantage in the form of its 12 MB shared L3 cache versus AMD’s 2 MB. This cache size difference could theoretically benefit certain data-heavy workloads that repeatedly access a working set larger than 2 MB, but no such benchmark is present in the data to confirm this hypothesis.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B has an average benchmark score of 2012, while the Intel Core i5-8400H scores 2003. The AMD chip also sits at the 45th percentile of all CPUs, matching the Intel chip’s 45th percentile ranking.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B scores 6957 compared to the Intel Core i5-8400H’s 6392. This represents an 8.8% delta in favor of AMD. The margin is nearly identical in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests, at 8.9% and 8.8%, respectively.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any single-core tests?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B wins all three single-core tests (R15, R20, R23) with deltas ranging from 8.9% to 9.0%. The Intel chip’s higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz does not overcome the AMD chip’s per-core efficiency.

Q: What is the most significant single-test margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B leads by 9.0% (412 vs 378). The smallest margin is 8.8%, seen in Cinebench R20 multi-core and R23 multi-core.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B and the Intel Core i5-8400H rank at the 45th percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are also very close, with a difference of only 9 points (2012 vs 2003).

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-8400H has a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B’s 3.80 GHz. Despite this, the AMD chip still wins all single-core benchmarks by nearly 9%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications despite sharing core and thread counts. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B has a base clock of 3.35 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-8400H operates at a 2.50 GHz base and a 4.10 GHz boost. This gives Intel a 0.30 GHz advantage in boost frequency, but AMD a 0.85 GHz advantage in base frequency.

The cache hierarchy is substantially different. The AMD chip features 128 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a 2 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has half the L1 (64 KB per core) and half the L2 (256 KB per core), but a much larger 12 MB shared L3 cache — six times the AMD part’s L3 allocation.

Physical specifications also diverge. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B uses an AMD Socket FP5, while the Intel Core i5-8400H uses an Intel BGA 1440. The AMD chip has a die size of 210 mm² and contains 4,950 million transistors, whereas the Intel chip has a smaller die at 126 mm² and no transistor count is listed. Both are 45 W TDP parts with DDR4 memory support and no ECC capability, but the AMD chip is dual-channel while the Intel memory bus is not specified.

The integrated graphics differ as well, with the AMD part featuring a Radeon RX Vega 11 and the Intel part a UHD 630. Market positioning also separates them: the AMD chip is a Desktop segment product that is still Active, while the Intel chip is a Mobile segment part that is End-of-life. The AMD chip was released on 2018-02-20, and the Intel chip on 2018-04-01.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed "Great Horned Owl," and is part of the Ryzen Embedded 1000 series. The Intel Core i5-8400H uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically Coffee Lake-H, and belongs to the Core i5 generation. Both are fabricated on a 14 nm process node, but the AMD chip is produced by GlobalFoundries, while Intel manufactures its own silicon.

The core design philosophies differ significantly. AMD’s Zen architecture allocates 128 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but shares a modest 2 MB L3 cache across all four cores. Intel’s Coffee Lake design uses smaller 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 allocations per core, but provides a generous 12 MB shared L3 cache. This suggests Intel’s design favors a larger pool of shared memory for repeated data access, while AMD’s design prioritizes faster per-core private caches.

The production status of the two chips is also a key architectural lifecycle difference. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B is listed as Active, indicating it is still in production and available for new designs. The Intel Core i5-8400H, however, is marked as End-of-life, meaning it has been discontinued. This is reflected in their market segments, with AMD targeting Desktop systems and Intel targeting Mobile platforms, even though both carry a 45 W TDP.