AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 vs Intel Core i7-11370H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a consistent picture across every Cinebench iteration: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins all six head-to-head tests. The margins are narrow but uniform, ranging from 2.9% to 3.1%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 1017 against Intel's 987, a 3% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story, with AMD at 143 and Intel at 139, a 2.9% edge.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. AMD's multi-core score of 4241 surpasses Intel's 4113 by 3.1%. The single-core test yields 598 versus 580, again a 3.1% delta. Cinebench R23 reinforces the trend: AMD posts 10099 multi-core and 1425 single-core, while Intel manages 9793 and 1382 respectively, both with a 3.1% gap.

What does this mean in context? The Intel Core i7-11370H, despite having a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz compared to AMD's 2.30 GHz and 3.80 GHz, cannot translate that frequency advantage into superior Cinebench performance. The AMD chip, built on a 6 nm TSMC process versus Intel's 10 nm node, consistently edges ahead. This suggests that architectural efficiency and memory bandwidth play a larger role than raw clock speeds in these workloads.

The average benchmark scores in the database place the AMD at 2921, while Intel sits at 2861. Both CPUs share the 51st percentile among all tested processors. Interestingly, the nearest rivals for AMD include the Intel Xeon E-2186M (average 2912, delta 0.3%) and the Intel Core i7-9850H (average 2934, delta -0.4%). For Intel, the closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5475U (average 2865, delta -0.1%). This means that while the two chips in this comparison are separated by roughly 2% in average score, they each sit in a densely packed performance tier where small margins define their position.

The 3DMark results, available only for the Intel chip, show a different dimension of performance. The Intel Core i7-11370H records 3588 with max threads, 3583 with 16 threads, and 3564 with 8 threads. Single-thread performance drops to 896. These numbers are not directly comparable to AMD in this dataset, but they demonstrate that Intel's architecture handles thread scaling efficiently, with minimal degradation from 16 to max threads.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins with a score of 10099, compared to the Intel Core i7-11370H's 9793, a 3.1% difference.

Q: How do single-core Cinebench R20 scores compare?

A: AMD leads at 598, while Intel scores 580. The delta is 3.1%, making this the largest single-core margin in the head-to-head data, tied with several other tests.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel interface and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i7-11370H uses DDR4, also dual-channel, but with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel chip wins?

A: In the head-to-head Cinebench tests, the Intel Core i7-11370H records zero wins. The AMD chip wins all six tests. However, the Intel chip has additional 3DMark and Geekbench scores in the database, including a Geekbench multi-core of 5485 and single-core of 1667, which are not directly compared here.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: AMD uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry. This likely contributes to the efficiency differences observed in the benchmarks.

Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-11370H has a base clock of 3.00 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14's 2.30 GHz. Despite this, AMD still outperforms Intel in all recorded Cinebench tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two processors is substantial. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 uses the Zen 3+ architecture under the Rembrandt codename, manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC. This represents AMD's refined iteration of Zen 3, with improvements aimed at power efficiency and memory subsystem performance. The chip supports DDR5 memory with ECC capability, a notable feature for embedded and server-oriented workloads.

The Intel Core i7-11370H belongs to the Tiger Lake family, specifically Tiger Lake-H, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own fabs. The die size is recorded at 146.1 mm². Intel's architecture here uses a different cache hierarchy: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. AMD counters with 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The larger per-core L2 on Intel could theoretically benefit certain workloads, but the benchmark data does not reflect an advantage in the recorded tests.

Memory support diverges sharply. AMD pairs with DDR5, delivering 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth on a dual-channel bus. Intel relies on DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s. The bandwidth difference is 33%, which likely explains part of AMD's consistent lead in memory-sensitive Cinebench workloads. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Intel part. Both CPUs expose Gen 4 PCIe with 20 lanes from the CPU, so platform expansion capabilities are similar in that regard.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Intel chip includes Iris XE 96EU, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has no integrated graphics listed. This positions Intel as a more self-contained mobile solution, whereas AMD assumes a discrete GPU or headless operation. The market segments reflect this: AMD is listed as Desktop (embedded), Intel as Mobile.

Specification Differences

The database records several fields where these two processors diverge. Clock speeds show Intel leading: base 3.00 GHz versus 2.30 GHz, boost 4.80 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. Thermal design power also differs, with Intel rated at 28 W and AMD at 15 W. This makes AMD the lower-power option, which aligns with its embedded positioning and smaller process node.

Cache configurations are distinct. Intel provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. AMD offers 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The sockets differ: AMD uses AMD Socket FP7, Intel uses Intel BGA 1449. Memory support and bandwidth are covered above. ECC memory is available only on AMD. The Intel chip has integrated Iris XE 96EU graphics; AMD has none listed. The release dates show AMD launching on 2022-09-26, while Intel arrived earlier on 2021-01-10. Intel has a recorded launch MSRP of $426; AMD's field is null. The part numbers are 100-000000557 for AMD and SRKH5 for Intel. Both are production active, both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins every Cinebench test in the head-to-head dataset. Its strengths are consistent across single-core and multi-core workloads, with margins that never drop below 2.9%. The combination of DDR5 memory bandwidth, a 6 nm process, and Zen 3+ architecture appears to deliver superior efficiency per watt. The 15 W TDP is notable: AMD achieves higher scores at nearly half the thermal budget of Intel's 28 W part. This makes the AMD chip attractive for embedded systems, fanless designs, or any deployment where power draw is a constraint.

The Intel Core i7-11370H, despite losing all direct comparisons, has its own merits. The higher clock speeds (3.00 GHz base, 4.80 GHz boost) could benefit bursty, latency-sensitive tasks that are not fully captured in sustained Cinebench runs. The integrated Iris XE 96EU graphics provide a complete package for mobile devices without a discrete GPU. The 3DMark scores, while not directly compared, suggest strong thread scaling behavior: 3588 at max threads versus 3583 at 16 threads, a negligible drop. The larger L3 cache (12 MB versus 8 MB) and bigger per-core L2 might help in workloads with repeated data access patterns. For a mobile laptop, the Intel chip offers a self-contained solution with higher clock headroom and a known launch MSRP of $426.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 as the stronger performer in Cinebench workloads. It wins all six head-to-head tests, achieves a higher average benchmark score (2921 versus 2861), and does so with a 15 W TDP compared to Intel's 28 W. The 3.1% margins are small, but they are consistent across every iteration of Cinebench, indicating a structural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The DDR5 memory support and ECC capability further tilt the scales toward AMD for embedded, server, or reliability-oriented use cases.

The Intel Core i7-11370H makes sense for different scenarios. Its integrated graphics, higher clock speeds, and mobile socket target laptops and compact devices where a discrete GPU is undesirable. The 3DMark and Geekbench scores in the database show strong single-thread and thread-scaling behavior, and the larger cache hierarchy could be beneficial in specific applications. However, the recorded benchmark data shows no test where Intel beats AMD. The choice, therefore, depends on the platform: if the requirement is a low-power embedded processor with ECC and DDR5, AMD is the clear pick. If the need is a mobile processor with integrated graphics and higher clock flexibility, Intel remains a viable option despite its benchmark deficit.