AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 vs Intel Atom x7211RE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench results show a decisive advantage for the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 across every test in the comparison set. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the AMD part scores 598 versus 106 for the Intel Atom x7211RE, a delta of 464.2%. That is not a marginal gap; it is a generational difference in raw instruction throughput per thread.

Multi-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 posts 1017 points against 181 for the Atom x7211RE, a 461.9% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 4241 versus 757, a 460.2% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the pattern: 10099 versus 1804, a 459.8% gap. Even the single-core Cinebench R23 result, often the category where smaller Atom cores are least disadvantaged, shows the AMD part scoring 1425 versus 254, a 461% delta.

The data records five head-to-head tests, and the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins all five. There are no benchmark wins for the Intel Atom x7211RE in this comparison set. The smallest relative margin is 459.8%, meaning even the closest result still favors the AMD processor by a factor of more than five and a half.

For context, the average benchmark score for the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is 2921, placing it at the 51st percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E-2186M, which scores 2912 (0.3% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600, which scores 2909 (0.4% lower). The Intel Atom x7211RE has an average benchmark score of 2811, also at the 51st percentile, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i5-8600K at 2807 (0.2% lower) and the Intel Xeon E-2324G at 2823 (0.4% higher). Both parts sit in the same percentile band, but the AMD chip achieves that standing with far higher peak scores across the Cinebench suite.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 uses the Zen 3+ architecture, codenamed Rembrandt, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Intel Atom x7211RE uses the Amston Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with 2 cores and 2 threads, a base clock of 1.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The process node difference alone, 6 nm versus 10 nm, explains part of the efficiency and frequency behavior.

Cache layouts also diverge. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip uses a per-core L2 arrangement, which suits its 8-thread workload scheduling, while the Intel chip shares a smaller L2 pool across its 2 cores.

Memory support differs sharply. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 supports DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Intel Atom x7211RE supports DDR4 and DDR5, but only in a single-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. That is exactly half the bandwidth, which matters for any memory-bound workload.

ECC memory is supported on the AMD part, but not on the Intel part. PCIe capabilities also differ: the AMD chip provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Intel chip provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes. The Intel part includes integrated UHD Graphics 16EU, while the AMD part lists no integrated graphics in the database.

The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel processor uses Intel BGA 1264. The AMD part is marked as a desktop market segment part, while the Intel part is marked as mobile. Both are active production parts, but the release dates differ: the AMD chip was released in September 2022, and the Intel chip in April 2024.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins in every recorded benchmark category. That includes all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core. The data shows no test where the Intel Atom x7211RE comes out ahead.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the AMD part leads by roughly 464% in Cinebench R20 single-core. That makes it suitable for tasks where per-thread latency matters, such as light interactive workloads or serial sections of a larger application.

For multi-threaded throughput, the AMD part leads by approximately 460% in Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core. The combination of 4 cores with 8 threads, a 3.80 GHz boost clock, and dual-channel DDR5 at 76.8 GB/s gives it a clear edge in parallel compilation, rendering, or data processing workloads.

The Intel Atom x7211RE has its strengths in other dimensions not captured by the head-to-head Cinebench set. It records a PassMark data compression score of 20820, a data encryption score of 1556, and an extended instructions score of 1007. It also shows a floating point math score of 4303 and an integer math score of 6517. However, within the direct comparison tests available, the AMD part dominates every entry.

The AMD chip also carries a 15 W TDP, while the Intel chip has a 6 W TDP. That makes the Intel part more power-frugal on paper, but the benchmark data does not include any performance-per-watt metric. The AMD part delivers substantially higher absolute performance, and the Intel part delivers dramatically lower power draw.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 | Intel Atom x7211RE |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 2 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 1.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 6 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Architecture | Zen 3+ | Amston Lake |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 96 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB per core | 2 MB shared |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB shared | 6 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 3, 9 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None listed | UHD Graphics 16EU |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | September 2022 | April 2024 |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | $42 |

The TDP difference is significant: 15 W versus 6 W. The AMD part uses more than double the power budget, but delivers roughly five times the multi-core performance in Cinebench R23. The Intel part has a lower launch MSRP of $42, but the database does not record a launch price for the AMD part, so no direct cost comparison is possible.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Atom x7211RE has 2 cores and 2 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 records 76.8 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5, while the Intel Atom x7211RE records 38.4 GB/s with single-channel DDR4 or DDR5.

Q: Does the Intel Atom x7211RE support ECC memory?

A: No. The database lists ECC memory support as true for the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 and false for the Intel Atom x7211RE.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 boosts to 3.80 GHz, while the Intel Atom x7211RE boosts to 3.20 GHz.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as active production parts in the database.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin in the comparison?

A: The largest delta is 464.2% in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 scores 598 versus 106 for the Intel Atom x7211RE.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for workloads that demand compute throughput. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, with deltas between 459.8% and 464.2%. It has more cores, more threads, higher clocks, wider memory bandwidth, ECC support, and a newer process node. If the task is CPU-bound, the AMD part is the only rational selection from these two.

The Intel Atom x7211RE makes sense only in contexts where its 6 W TDP and $42 launch MSRP are the deciding factors, and where the workload is extremely light. The database shows no benchmark category where the Intel part beats the AMD part, so any performance-sensitive deployment should favor the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14.

For embedded systems where power draw is the hard constraint, the Intel Atom x7211RE offers a much lower thermal envelope, but the performance gap is enormous. The AMD part sits at the 51st percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 2921, while the Intel part also sits at the 51st percentile with an average score of 2811, yet that average is pulled up by PassMark tests that are not part of the direct Cinebench comparison. In the measured Cinebench suite, the AMD processor is decisively faster across the board. The verdict from the recorded data: choose the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 for performance, and only consider the Intel Atom x7211RE if the power budget is so tight that 6 W is a hard ceiling.