CPU Comparison

The benchmark data presents a fascinating anomaly: two processors with fundamentally different architectures and specifications produce nearly identical performance results. The Intel Xeon E-2374G and AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 are separated by margins of 0.1% or less across every Cinebench test, with the Intel part technically winning all six head-to-head comparisons. Both CPUs sit at the 53rd percentile among all processors, and their average benchmark scores are virtually indistinguishable at 3278 versus 3277. This is not a case of one part clearly outperforming another; it is a statistical tie that forces a deeper examination of what each platform offers beyond raw compute.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: choose based on platform requirements, not performance. In every benchmark, the Intel Xeon E-2374G edges out the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 by 0.1% or ties it exactly. The largest margin of victory is a 0.1% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 singlecore, and R23 multicore and singlecore. The R20 multicore test ends in a dead heat at 4760 versus 4758. For workloads that rely on these Cinebench metrics, neither processor offers a meaningful advantage over the other.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516, however, presents a stark contrast in power characteristics. Its TDP is 10 watts, compared to 80 watts for the Intel Xeon E-2374G. This is an eightfold difference in thermal design power. The data does not include performance-per-watt calculations, but the implication is clear: the AMD part achieves nearly identical scores while consuming a fraction of the power budget. For passively cooled embedded systems, fanless designs, or battery-powered industrial equipment, the V2516 is the only rational choice. The Intel part, with its 5.00 GHz boost clock and 80 watt TDP, is better suited for socketed server or workstation boards where cooling is not a constraint and the higher clock speed might matter in workloads not captured by Cinebench.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from opposite ends of the design spectrum. The Intel Xeon E-2374G uses the Rocket Lake architecture, specifically Rocket Lake-E, built on Intel's 14 nm process node with a die size of 276 mm². It is a 4-core, 8-thread part. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 uses Zen 2 architecture under the Renoir codename, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process with a die size of 156 mm² and a transistor count of 9,800 million. It offers 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD chip is smaller, denser, and more power-efficient on paper.

Cache configurations differ in the L1 tier. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, while the AMD part has 64 KB per core. Both have 512 KB of L2 per core and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip's larger L1 cache per core could theoretically benefit single-threaded latency-sensitive workloads, but the benchmark results show no measurable advantage.

The integrated graphics also differ. Intel pairs the Xeon with UHD Graphics P750, while AMD includes Radeon Graphics with 384 shader processors. The Xeon E-2374G supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, whereas the V2516 is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with the same 20 lanes. This is a significant architectural difference for storage or GPU expansion, as Gen 4 offers double the bandwidth per lane. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP6, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1200.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results tell a story of near-perfect parity. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel Xeon E-2374G scores 1142 against the AMD's 1141, a 0.1% lead. The singlecore R15 test is an exact tie at 161 points each. Moving to R20, the multicore test shows the Intel part at 4760 versus 4758 for AMD, a 0.0% delta. Singlecore R20 is 672 versus 671, another 0.1% edge for Intel. In R23, the multicore result is 11335 for Intel and 11329 for AMD, a 0.1% margin. The singlecore R23 test rounds out the sweep at 1600 versus 1599, once again a 0.1% difference.

The pattern is consistent: the Intel Xeon E-2374G wins all six tests, but the margins are within noise. A 0.1% delta translates to a handful of points in each test. The AMD's 6-core, 12-thread configuration does not overcome the Intel's higher clock speeds in these workloads. The Intel part boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the AMD tops out at 3.95 GHz. Yet the AMD's additional two cores and four threads compensate almost exactly for that clock deficit. The result is a performance tie that defies the specification sheet.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification, yet deliver identical benchmark scores. The Intel Xeon E-2374G has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 3.70 GHz for Intel versus 2.10 GHz for AMD. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz versus 3.95 GHz. TDP is 80 watts for Intel versus 10 watts for AMD. The process node is 14 nm for Intel versus 7 nm for AMD, with die sizes of 276 mm² and 156 mm² respectively. The AMD part lists a transistor count of 9,800 million, while the Intel part does not provide that figure.

Memory support is identical: both use DDR4 in dual-channel configuration with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. Both have 8 MB of shared L3 cache and 512 KB of L2 per core. The L1 cache differs at 80 KB per core for Intel versus 64 KB per core for AMD. PCIe generation is a clear split: Intel offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while AMD offers Gen 3 with 20 lanes. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $334; the AMD part has no listed launch MSRP. The Intel Xeon was released on 2021-09-07, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded came out on 2020-11-09. Both are currently in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2374G boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 tops out at 3.95 GHz. Despite this 1.05 GHz difference, the AMD part nearly matches Intel's scores in all Cinebench tests.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2374G has 4 cores and 8 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD's additional cores and threads offset the Intel's clock advantage in multi-threaded workloads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel part has a TDP of 80 watts, while the AMD part has a TDP of 10 watts. This is an 8x difference in thermal design power, yet the AMD chip scores within 0.1% of the Intel chip on every benchmark.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 4?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2374G supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 20 lanes. This makes the Intel part better suited for high-bandwidth storage or GPU expansion.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E-2374G and the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 support ECC memory. Both also use DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the release date of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2374G was released on 2021-09-07. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 was released earlier, on 2020-11-09. Both are still in active production.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E-2374G wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but only by 0.1% or less. Its real advantages lie outside Cinebench. The PCIe Gen 4 support with 20 lanes provides double the bandwidth of the AMD's Gen 3 interface, which matters for NVMe storage arrays or modern GPUs. The higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz could benefit lightly threaded workloads that are not captured by these multi-threaded rendering tests. The Intel part also has a larger L1 cache per core at 80 KB versus 64 KB. Its 80 watt TDP and launch MSRP of $334 position it as a conventional server/workstation part for Socket 1200 boards with active cooling.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 wins on power efficiency by an enormous margin. Its 10 watt TDP makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled embedded systems, where the Intel's 80 watt TDP would require active cooling. The 7 nm process node from TSMC with 9,800 million transistors in a 156 mm² die demonstrates a density advantage over Intel's 14 nm process with a 276 mm² die. The AMD part also offers more cores and threads, which might benefit workloads beyond Cinebench that scale better with core count, though the data does not show this advantage in the tested benchmarks. For embedded, industrial, or mobile applications where power draw and heat dissipation are critical constraints, the V2516 is the clear winner. The benchmark scores are effectively identical, so the decision rests on platform features and power requirements.