AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 vs Intel Core i5-10600 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a remarkably one-sided picture. Across every Cinebench test in the database, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 outperforms the Intel Core i5-10600. The margin is consistent, ranging from 2.9% to 3% in favor of AMD in both single-core and multi-core workloads. For a 4-core, 8-thread processor to beat a 6-core, 12-thread processor in every measured scenario is notable.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw benchmark performance, especially in applications that rely on Cinebench-style rendering workloads. Its advantage is not isolated to one test; it wins all six head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core i5-10600, despite having more cores, threads, and a substantially higher boost clock, cannot match the AMD part in any of the recorded benchmarks.

However, the choice is not purely about performance scores. The AMD processor is an embedded part on Socket FP7, designed for specific industrial or compact systems. The Intel part is a mainstream desktop processor on Socket 1200. The decision may come down to platform requirements, but strictly from the data, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is the better performer. The Intel Core i5-10600 is not without merit, but its benchmark results do not support a performance-based recommendation over the AMD part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six Cinebench comparisons. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins every single one. The largest single margin is 3%, recorded in both Cinebench R20 multi-core and Cinebench R23 multi-core. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the AMD scores 4241 against Intel's 4119. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the scores are 10099 and 9809 respectively.

The single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 single-core, AMD scores 143 versus Intel's 139, a 2.9% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the scores are 598 and 581, again a 2.9% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows AMD at 1425 and Intel at 1384, a 3% advantage. Even Cinebench R15 multi-core, which is the closest contest, shows AMD ahead at 1017 versus 988.

The consistency of the margin is striking. Whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, the AMD part maintains a lead of roughly 3%. This suggests the performance advantage is architectural rather than workload-specific. The Intel Core i5-10600 has a higher base clock (3.30 GHz) and boost clock (4.80 GHz) compared to the AMD's 2.30 GHz and 3.80 GHz, yet it still loses. The data indicates that clock speed alone does not compensate for the architectural efficiency of the AMD processor.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is built on TSMC's 6 nm process node, using the Zen 3+ architecture with the codename Rembrandt. The Intel Core i5-10600 uses Intel's 14 nm process node with the Comet Lake architecture. This generational and process gap is the most significant difference between the two. The AMD part is a newer design on a more advanced manufacturing process, which explains its efficiency and performance despite lower clock speeds.

The AMD processor has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel processor has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite having two fewer cores and four fewer threads, the AMD part wins all benchmarks. This points to a substantial instructions-per-clock (IPC) advantage for the Zen 3+ architecture. The cache configurations also differ. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The AMD part has 512 KB of L2 cache per core, while the Intel part has 256 KB per core. The L3 cache is also different: AMD has 8 MB shared, while Intel has 12 MB shared. The Intel part has more total L3, but the AMD part has twice the per-core L2.

Memory support is another major divider. The AMD processor supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Intel processor supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. The PCIe interfaces differ as well: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Specification Differences

The specification tables show several clear differences between the two processors. The core count is the most obvious: AMD has 4 cores and 8 threads, while Intel has 6 cores and 12 threads. The base clock is 2.30 GHz for AMD and 3.30 GHz for Intel. The boost clock is 3.80 GHz for AMD and 4.80 GHz for Intel. The thermal design power (TDP) is dramatically different: AMD is rated at 15 watts, while Intel is rated at 65 watts.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket FP7, while Intel uses Socket 1200. The process nodes are different: AMD uses 6 nm from TSMC, while Intel uses 14 nm from its own foundry. Cache sizes differ in L2 and L3: AMD has 512 KB L2 per core and 8 MB shared L3, while Intel has 256 KB L2 per core and 12 MB shared L3. Memory support is different: AMD uses DDR5, Intel uses DDR4. The memory bandwidth figures are 76.8 GB/s for AMD and 42.7 GB/s for Intel.

ECC memory support is present on the AMD part but absent on the Intel part. The PCIe version and lane count also differ: AMD has Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel has Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The Intel part includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the AMD part has no listed integrated graphics. The release dates differ: AMD was released on 2022-09-26, while Intel was released on 2020-04-29.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 scores 10099, while the Intel Core i5-10600 scores 9809. AMD leads by 3%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-10600 have more cores?

A: Yes, the Intel part has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is rated at 15 watts, while the Intel Core i5-10600 is rated at 65 watts.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 supports DDR5 with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Intel Core i5-10600 supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-10600 does not.

Q: How many times does the AMD processor win in head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins all six head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core i5-10600, with no wins for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its performance is superior in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests. The data shows a 2.9% to 3% advantage across all six tests. This makes it the better choice for any workload that resembles Cinebench rendering, which typically stresses both single-threaded and multi-threaded performance. Its 15-watt TDP is also a significant advantage for systems where power consumption and thermal output are critical constraints. The support for DDR5 memory and ECC further positions it for reliability-focused embedded applications.

The Intel Core i5-10600 does not win any benchmark in the database. However, it offers other advantages that are not captured in these specific tests. It has more cores and threads, which could theoretically benefit workloads outside of Cinebench, though the recorded data does not support this. It has a higher base clock and boost clock, which might help in lightly threaded tasks, but again, the Cinebench single-core scores show AMD ahead. The Intel part includes integrated graphics, which is a feature the AMD part lacks. This could be important for systems that require a display output without a discrete GPU.

The Intel part is on Socket 1200, a mainstream desktop platform, while the AMD part is on Socket FP7, an embedded platform. For a standard desktop build, the Intel platform may offer more motherboard options. The Intel part also has more L3 cache (12 MB versus 8 MB), though this does not translate to a win in the recorded benchmarks. In summary, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins on all measured performance metrics, while the Intel Core i5-10600 retains advantages in platform familiarity, integrated graphics, and raw core count, but none of these translate to benchmark victories in the database.