AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 vs Intel Core i5-12400T Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a remarkably consistent pattern across all six Cinebench tests: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 wins every single comparison, though by very narrow margins. This is not a story of dominance, but of persistent, small advantages that compound across workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD part scores 1350 against Intel's 1333, a delta of -1.3% from Intel's perspective. The single-core test tells a similar story: 190 for AMD versus 188 for Intel, a 1.1% gap. These differences are small enough that they could be attributed to thermal headroom, silicon lottery, or driver state, yet they recur in every test in the database.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result shows AMD at 5626 versus Intel at 5558, a 1.2% edge. Single-core again favors AMD: 794 versus 784, a 1.3% difference. The R23 suite repeats the pattern with multicore scores of 13396 for AMD and 13234 for Intel, and single-core scores of 1891 versus 1868. Both R23 deltas sit at -1.2% from Intel's perspective.

What is notable here is the absence of any countervailing Intel win. Typically, a comparison between a desktop-oriented 12th Gen Core chip and an embedded Ryzen part would show at least one test where the higher boost clock or different cache hierarchy flips a result. The data shows no such flip. The AMD V2718 wins six out of six head-to-head benchmarks, and the margins are tight enough that the overall average benchmark scores reflect only a modest separation.

The broader database context reinforces this closeness. The Intel i5-12400T holds a 57th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 4019. The AMD V2718 sits at the 56th percentile with an average score of 3875. That is a 144-point gap in favor of Intel in the aggregate metric, even though AMD wins every individual Cinebench test. This apparent contradiction stems from the fact that the Intel part has additional Geekbench results in its benchmark set, which pull its average upward. The AMD part lacks Geekbench entries, so its average is computed solely from Cinebench scores.

The nearest rivals for each part further contextualize their standing. The Intel i5-12400T is bracketed by the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655G at an average score of 4010 (0.2% delta), the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 at 4004 (0.4%), the Intel Xeon E-2336 at 3985 (0.9%), and the Intel Xeon E-2278G at 4052 (-0.8%). The AMD V2718 sits near the Intel Core i7-11700T at 3864 (0.3%), the AMD Ryzen 5 4600GE at 3906 (-0.8%), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS at 3924 (-1.3%), and the Intel Xeon E-2286M at 3822 (1.4%). Both parts are clustered tightly with their neighbors, suggesting that neither has a dramatic performance outlier in the database's aggregate scoring.

For end users, the practical takeaway from the head-to-head results is that the two chips are functionally interchangeable in raw compute for Cinebench-style rendering workloads. A 1.2% to 1.3% difference is within run-to-run variance for many systems. Yet the consistency of AMD's edge across all six tests hints that the V2718's architectural choices, more cores and threads, may provide a slight structural advantage that manifests even in single-threaded tests.

# Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their underlying designs, even though their performance profiles end up similar. The Intel Core i5-12400T uses the Alder Lake-S architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process node. It is a 6-core, 12-thread design with a base clock of 1800 MHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 uses the Zen 2 architecture with the Renoir codename, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm node. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost clock of 4.15 GHz.

The process node difference is instructive. Intel's 10 nm node and TSMC's 7 nm node are from different generations, but the practical effect on performance here is muted because the Intel chip compensates with a higher boost clock. The AMD part has two additional cores and four additional threads, which should theoretically give it a multicore advantage. Yet the benchmark data shows only a 1.2% to 1.3% multicore edge. This suggests that Intel's per-core efficiency, likely from the newer Alder Lake design, closes most of the core-count gap.

Cache hierarchies present another contrast. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and only 8 MB of shared L3. Intel's larger L2 and L3 allocations likely help its six cores achieve competitive performance against AMD's eight. The AMD chip's smaller cache footprint is typical of the Renoir embedded design, which prioritizes lower power consumption over raw cache capacity.

Memory support differs as well. The Intel i5-12400T supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, while the AMD V2718 is limited to DDR4. The AMD part has a specified memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the Intel chip's memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database. For applications that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, the AMD part's official figure provides a baseline, but the Intel chip's DDR5 support could offer higher bandwidth in practice, though that is not quantified in the recorded data.

The integrated graphics also differ. Intel pairs its chip with UHD Graphics 730, while AMD uses Radeon Graphics with 448 shader processors (listed as 448SP). The AMD part's graphics solution is likely more capable for embedded display workloads, but the database does not include graphics benchmarks for either part.

Other architectural details include the transistor counts and die sizes. The AMD V2718 has 9,800 million transistors on a 156 mm² die. The Intel part's transistor count is not recorded in the database, but its die size is 163 mm². The AMD chip's higher transistor count on a slightly smaller die reflects the denser 7 nm process.

Power characteristics are a major differentiator. The Intel i5-12400T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the AMD V2718 has a TDP of just 10 watts. This is a threefold difference in thermal design power. The AMD part's much lower TDP, combined with its 8-core/16-thread design, positions it as a power-efficient compute solution. The Intel chip, despite its higher TDP, uses less power than many desktop parts but still draws more than the AMD embedded chip.

PCIe support also differs. The Intel chip offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD part provides Gen 3 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part's PCIe Gen 5 support is a forward-looking feature that enables faster connectivity for storage and expansion, though it requires compatible hardware to realize the benefit. The AMD chip's Gen 3 support is more conservative but sufficient for many embedded applications.

Socket compatibility further separates the two. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700, while the AMD part uses AMD Socket FP6. These are not interchangeable platforms, which means system builders must commit to one ecosystem. The Intel chip's market segment is listed as Desktop, while the AMD part is also listed as Desktop, despite its embedded positioning in the Ryzen Embedded series. Both parts are currently active in production.

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of AMD's numerical wins, but the context of each part's design goals suggests different deployment scenarios.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 wins all six Cinebench tests, but the margins are small. Its 8-core, 16-thread configuration at a 10-watt TDP makes it particularly interesting for power-constrained environments. A system that needs sustained multi-threaded compute in a fanless or passively cooled chassis would benefit from the V2718's low power draw. The data shows it can match or slightly exceed the Intel part's Cinebench scores while consuming roughly one-third of the TDP budget. This positions it well for embedded industrial PCs, edge servers, or network appliances where thermal limits are strict and the 10-watt rating is a decisive advantage.

The Intel Core i5-12400T, despite losing the head-to-head tests, has its own strengths. Its 57th percentile ranking versus the AMD part's 56th percentile, combined with a higher average benchmark score of 4019 versus 3875, indicates that the Intel chip performs better in the broader benchmark suite, particularly in Geekbench tests that are not shared between the two parts. The Intel part's DDR5 memory support and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity make it a more future-proof choice for desktop systems where memory bandwidth and expansion capabilities matter. Its 35-watt TDP, while higher than AMD's, is still modest for a desktop part, allowing compact builds with adequate cooling.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel chip's higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz versus AMD's 4.15 GHz suggests a slight edge in bursty workloads, though the Cinebench single-core scores show AMD ahead by 1.1% to 1.3%. This is a case where the recorded data contradicts the clock-speed intuition. The AMD part's Zen 2 architecture appears to extract more instructions per clock in these tests, despite the lower boost frequency.

The AMD part's ECC memory support is a significant differentiator for reliability-critical applications. The database lists ECC memory as true for the AMD V2718 and false for the Intel i5-12400T. For systems that require error-correcting memory, such as file servers, database machines, or medical devices, this feature alone could determine the choice. The Intel part cannot be configured with ECC memory, limiting its appeal in those segments.

The Intel part's larger L3 cache of 18 MB versus AMD's 8 MB may benefit workloads that repeatedly access a large working set. However, the benchmark data does not include tests that isolate cache-sensitive performance, so this remains a theoretical advantage. Similarly, the Intel part's support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives system builders flexibility, while the AMD part is locked to DDR4 with a specified 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

The production status for both is active, so neither is a legacy part. The AMD V2718 has a release date of 2020, while the Intel part's release date is not recorded in the database. For procurement teams, the AMD part's known availability since late 2020 may make it a safer supply-chain choice, while the Intel part's newer Alder Lake architecture suggests a more recent introduction.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 scores 1891 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Core i5-12400T scores 1868. AMD leads by 1.2%.

Q: How much power does each processor consume?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400T has a TDP of 35 watts. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 has a TDP of 10 watts, which is significantly lower.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-12400T does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400T has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400T supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 supports only DDR4 memory.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400T has an average benchmark score of 4019. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 has an average benchmark score of 3875.

# Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i5-12400T | AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1800.00 MHz | 1700.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 4.15 GHz |

| TDP | 35 watts | 10 watts |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket FP6 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Alder Lake-S | Renoir |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 9,800 million |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | 156 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 51.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Radeon Graphics 448SP |

| Launch MSRP | $192 | Not recorded |

# The Verdict

The data suggests two different answers depending on what a system builder prioritizes. If the goal is maximum compute per watt, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718 is the clear choice. Its 10-watt TDP, combined with 8 cores and 16 threads, delivers Cinebench scores that match or slightly exceed the Intel part across all six recorded tests. The AMD chip wins every head-to-head benchmark, albeit by narrow margins, and adds ECC memory support for reliability-critical workloads. Its Zen 2 architecture on TSMC's 7 nm process achieves this performance at one-third the power draw of the Intel chip.

If the goal is desktop flexibility and future-proofing, the Intel Core i5-12400T has compelling arguments. Its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, along with PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, gives system builders more options for memory and expansion. The Intel part's higher average benchmark score of 4019 versus 3875, and its 57th percentile ranking versus the AMD part's 56th percentile, indicate that it performs better in the broader database context, particularly in Geekbench tests that are not shared between the two. Its 35-watt TDP is still low enough for compact desktop builds, and its 4.20 GHz boost clock is slightly higher than AMD's 4.15 GHz.

For embedded or industrial deployments where power, reliability, and long-term availability matter, the AMD V2718's 10-watt TDP and ECC support are decisive. The recorded data shows no meaningful performance penalty for choosing it over the Intel part in Cinebench workloads. For general desktop use where memory flexibility and expansion speed take precedence, the Intel i5-12400T offers a more modern platform despite its slightly lower benchmark scores in the head-to-head tests.

The narrowness of the performance differences means that non-performance factors, such as socket compatibility, memory type, and power budget, should drive the decision. The AMD part's wins are consistent but small, and the Intel part's advantages are architectural rather than benchmark-visible. Neither chip is a mistake, but the V2718 suits constrained environments, and the i5-12400T suits flexible desktop builds.