AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748 vs Intel Core i9-9900KF Comparison

The data presents a striking result: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748 wins every single head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Core i9-9900KF, despite the Intel part’s higher boost clock and desktop pedigree. Across six Cinebench tests, the AMD chip leads by a consistent margin of roughly 2.3% to 2.5%, a narrow but uniform advantage that suggests a fundamental efficiency and architecture edge rather than a workload-specific fluke. The Intel i9-9900KF, with its 5.00 GHz boost and 95W TDP, cannot overcome the Zen 2 architecture’s superior instructions-per-clock, even when the AMD chip operates at a significantly lower 2.90 GHz base and 4.25 GHz boost. The verdict is clear: in raw CPU rendering throughput, the embedded part is the better performer, albeit by a slim margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748 sweeps all six Cinebench comparisons, with the largest relative gap appearing in Cinebench R20 single-core. Here, AMD scores 929 against Intel’s 906, a -2.5% delta. This is the widest margin in the entire matchup, and it is telling: single-core performance is often where Intel’s high boost clocks typically shine, yet the 9900KF cannot match the Zen 2 core efficiency. The Cinebench R15 single-core test tells the same story, with AMD at 222 and Intel at 217, a 2.3% lead for AMD. These single-core results are not isolated anomalies; they reflect a consistent IPC advantage that carries into all multi-threaded workloads.

In multi-core tests, the AMD part maintains its lead with remarkable consistency. Cinebench R15 multicore shows AMD at 1579 and Intel at 1541, a 2.4% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore produces 6580 for AMD versus 6422 for Intel, again a 2.4% gap. The longest test, Cinebench R23 multicore, yields 15668 for the Ryzen and 15292 for the Core i9, maintaining that same 2.4% delta. The pattern is almost mechanical: across every generation of Cinebench, from R15 to R23, and across both single- and multi-core scenarios, the AMD chip’s lead hovers between 2.3% and 2.5%. This uniformity indicates a stable architectural advantage, not a test-specific preference.

The magnitude of these wins is modest in absolute terms — the largest raw score difference is 376 points in Cinebench R23 multicore — but the direction is unambiguous. The Intel i9-9900KF’s best performance comes in Cinebench R23 multicore (15292), yet it still trails the AMD part (15668). The data shows no scenario where the Intel processor pulls ahead. The 9900KF’s 5.00 GHz boost clock is a headline spec, but it does not translate to victory in a single benchmark. For context, the Intel part’s average benchmark score is 4652, while the AMD part sits at 4532; this aggregate metric slightly favors Intel, but the head-to-head Cinebench suite tells a different, more specific story. The Ryzen Embedded V2748 is the definitive winner in this direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests. The Intel Core i9-9900KF records zero wins.

Q: How large is the AMD processor’s performance lead?

A: The lead is consistent, ranging from 2.3% to 2.5% across all tests. For example, in Cinebench R20 single-core, AMD scores 929 versus Intel’s 906, a -2.5% delta, while in Cinebench R23 multicore, AMD’s 15668 beats Intel’s 15292 by 2.4%.

Q: Does the Intel CPU’s higher boost clock help it in any benchmark?

A: No. Despite a 5.00 GHz boost clock versus AMD’s 4.25 GHz, the Intel part loses every single-core test. In Cinebench R15 single-core, Intel scores 217 against AMD’s 222, and in Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel’s 2158 trails AMD’s 2212.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core i9-9900KF has a TDP of 95W, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748 has a TDP of 35W. The AMD part delivers superior benchmark scores while consuming less than half the thermal design power.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 8 cores and 16 threads. However, the AMD part uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 14 nm process from its own foundry.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i9-9900KF has a higher average benchmark score of 4652 compared to AMD’s 4532, a difference of 120 points. This aggregate metric slightly favors Intel, but it does not reflect the direct head-to-head results where AMD wins all tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The Intel Core i9-9900KF is built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, with a die size of 180.3 mm². It uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-R refresh, and fits the Intel Socket 1151. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748, by contrast, is manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC, with a smaller die at 156 mm² and a transistor count of 9,800 million. It uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Renoir codename and fits the AMD Socket FP6. The process node difference — 14 nm versus 7 nm — is a primary driver of the AMD part’s efficiency, enabling lower power draw and higher performance per clock.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. Both chips feature 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: Intel uses 256 KB per core, while AMD doubles this to 512 KB per core. The L3 cache is also divergent: Intel has 16 MB shared, whereas AMD offers 8 MB shared. This means Intel has a larger total L3 pool, but AMD’s per-core L2 is more generous. In practice, the AMD chip’s larger L2 likely contributes to its IPC advantage, reducing reliance on the smaller L3. The Intel part compensates with double the L3 capacity, yet benchmark results show this does not overcome AMD’s architectural efficiency.

Connectivity and features diverge further. Intel provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while AMD offers 20 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), a 25% increase in lane count. Intel has no integrated graphics, whereas AMD integrates Radeon Graphics with 448 SPs. Memory bandwidth also favors AMD: the Ryzen Embedded V2748 delivers 51.2 GB/s versus Intel’s 42.7 GB/s, a 20% improvement. AMD also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Intel part. The AMD chip is unlocked for overclocking? No — it has a locked multiplier, while the Intel i9-9900KF has an unlocked multiplier. The process node, cache hierarchy, PCIe lanes, memory bandwidth, and integrated graphics all represent fundamental architectural choices that favor the AMD design in this matchup.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The base clock is a significant gap: Intel runs at 3.60 GHz, AMD at 2.90 GHz. The boost clock shows Intel’s advantage: 5.00 GHz versus 4.25 GHz for AMD. TDP is the most dramatic difference: Intel draws 95W, AMD only 35W. The process node is 14 nm for Intel and 7 nm for AMD, with Intel’s die at 180.3 mm² and AMD’s at 156 mm². Transistor count is only listed for AMD at 9,800 million; Intel’s is not provided. L2 cache is 256 KB per core for Intel and 512 KB per core for AMD. L3 cache is 16 MB shared for Intel and 8 MB shared for AMD. Memory bandwidth favors AMD at 51.2 GB/s versus Intel’s 42.7 GB/s. ECC memory support is present only on AMD. PCIe lanes are 16 on Intel and 20 on AMD. Integrated graphics are absent on Intel but present as Radeon Graphics 448SP on AMD. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier; the AMD part is locked. Release dates differ by nearly two years: Intel launched on 2019-01-07, AMD on 2020-11-09. Intel is end-of-life with a launch MSRP of $488; AMD is active with no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded. It wins all six Cinebench tests with deltas between -2.3% and -2.5%. This is a sweep, and it is not a narrow one in terms of consistency. The Intel Core i9-9900KF’s higher boost clock and larger L3 cache do not translate to any performance victory. The AMD chip achieves this while consuming only 35W TDP versus Intel’s 95W, making it more than twice as power-efficient in this metric. The AMD part also offers ECC memory support, integrated graphics, more PCIe lanes, and higher memory bandwidth. For anyone prioritizing raw Cinebench performance, power efficiency, or platform features, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748 is the superior choice based solely on the facts presented. The Intel part’s only quantitative advantage is its higher average benchmark score (4652 versus 4532) and its unlocked multiplier, which allows overclocking. However, the head-to-head results show that even with a boost clock advantage, Intel cannot win a single test. The verdict is clear: AMD dominates this comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748 wins every single-core and multi-core Cinebench test, from R15 to R23. This makes it the definitive pick for workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering, whether single-threaded tasks like legacy application responsiveness or fully threaded multi-core renders. Its 20 PCIe Gen 3 lanes and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth suggest it is better suited for systems requiring more I/O and memory throughput. The integrated Radeon Graphics 448SP provides a built-in display output, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic configurations. ECC memory support is critical for reliability-sensitive embedded or server environments. The 35W TDP makes it ideal for compact, thermally constrained systems. The Intel Core i9-9900KF, conversely, has no benchmark wins to point to. Its strengths are limited to its unlocked multiplier for enthusiast overclocking and a higher average benchmark score of 4652 versus 4532. It also has a larger 16 MB L3 cache, which could theoretically benefit cache-heavy workloads, though no benchmark in this data confirms this. The Intel part’s 95W TDP and lack of integrated graphics or ECC support make it a less versatile platform component. In this dataset, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748 is the winner across all measured scenarios; the Intel i9-9900KF’s only claims to relevance are its overclocking headroom and aggregate score metric.