CPU Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear, if surprising, outcome: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons against the Intel Xeon E-2186M, despite having fewer cores and a substantially lower TDP. The AMD part wins by a consistent margin of 5.8–5.9% across every test iteration, from Cinebench R15 to R23, in both single-core and multi-core workloads. This is not a narrow victory in one specific task; it is a uniform performance sweep.

For system integrators and embedded platform designers, the choice hinges on the total platform context. The V3C14 offers superior Cinebench throughput, higher memory bandwidth (76.8 GB/s vs. 42.7 GB/s), and a far lower thermal envelope (15W vs. 45W), all on a modern 6nm node. The Xeon E-2186M counters with more physical cores (6 vs. 4), a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs. 3.80 GHz), and integrated graphics (UHD Graphics P630), which the AMD part lacks entirely. If raw multi-threaded rendering performance in a low-power embedded chassis is the priority, the V3C14 is the data-backed winner. If the application requires integrated display output or legacy PCIe Gen 3 ecosystem compatibility, the Xeon retains structural advantages that benchmarks do not capture.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical (2921 for AMD, 2912 for Intel, a 0.3% delta), placing both in the 51st percentile of all CPUs. This means the V3C14's consistent win margin is not about overall performance class but about efficiency-per-clock and architectural efficiency. The Xeon's 6-core/12-thread configuration cannot overcome the IPC advantage of Zen 3+ at this power level. For new designs, the V3C14 is the safer performance bet. For existing Xeon E-2186M platforms, there is no data-driven urgency to upgrade, as the performance delta is modest, but the power and bandwidth advantages of the AMD part are compelling for new builds.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies and process generations. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is built on TSMC's 6nm process using the Zen 3+ architecture (codenamed Rembrandt). It features 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its thermal design point is 15W, which is exceptionally low for a chip with this level of Cinebench performance. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, yielding 76.8 GB/s of theoretical bandwidth. It supports ECC memory and provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. The socket is AMD Socket FP7. The chip is marked as Active production status, with a release date of September 26, 2022. It has no integrated graphics listed.

The Intel Xeon E-2186M, in contrast, is a Coffee Lake-H part from the Xeon E-2100 series, manufactured on Intel's 14nm process. It offers 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its TDP is 45W, triple that of the AMD part. The cache layout differs: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core (half the AMD's per-core L2), but a larger 12 MB shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 over dual-channel, providing 42.7 GB/s, roughly 44% less bandwidth than the AMD part. It also supports ECC memory. PCIe is Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The socket is Intel BGA 1440. It includes integrated UHD Graphics P630, a feature absent on the V3C14. The die size is 154 mm². The production status is End-of-life, with a release date of April 3, 2018. Its launch MSRP was $623.

The architectural delta is significant. The V3C14 uses a newer process node (6nm vs. 14nm), newer memory standard (DDR5 vs. DDR4), and newer PCIe generation (Gen 4 vs. Gen 3). The Xeon compensates with more cores, higher clocks, and a larger L3 cache (12 MB vs. 8 MB). Yet the benchmark results consistently favor the AMD part, indicating that Zen 3+'s IPC advantage and the higher memory bandwidth outweigh the Intel part's core-count and clock-speed lead in Cinebench workloads. The 15W vs. 45W TDP gap further underscores the efficiency difference; the AMD part achieves superior scores at one-third the thermal budget.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a complete sweep for the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 in all six Cinebench head-to-head tests. There is no benchmark in the provided set where the Intel Xeon E-2186M comes out ahead. The AMD part wins multi-core and single-core tests alike, with margins ranging from 5.8% to 5.9%. Specifically, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the V3C14 scores 10099 against the Xeon's 9542; in single-core, it scores 1425 versus 1347. The pattern repeats in R20 (4241 vs. 4007 multi-core; 598 vs. 565 single-core) and R15 (1017 vs. 961 multi-core; 143 vs. 135 single-core).

This uniformity suggests that the V3C14's advantage is intrinsic to its architecture rather than workload-specific. The consistent 5.8% delta across all tests indicates that the Zen 3+ cores simply execute more instructions per clock than Coffee Lake cores at the same power draw. In practical terms, the V3C14 is the better choice for any Cinebench-based rendering or CPU-bound computational task. However, the Xeon's 6-core/12-thread configuration and higher boost clock (4.80 GHz) may theoretically benefit workloads that are heavily threaded and clock-sensitive, though the data does not support this hypothesis in Cinebench. The Xeon also holds an advantage in platform features: it has integrated graphics for display output without a discrete GPU, and its PCIe Gen 3 lanes are compatible with older infrastructure. For embedded systems requiring a GPU output or legacy I/O, the Xeon remains viable despite its benchmark deficit.

The AMD part's 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the Xeon's 42.7 GB/s is another clear differentiator, though it is not directly benchmarked in the Cinebench results. For memory-bandwidth-bound workloads (e.g., certain data processing or virtualization tasks), the V3C14's DDR5 support provides a structural advantage. The Xeon's larger 12 MB L3 cache (vs. 8 MB) may help in cache-resident workloads, but again, the Cinebench data shows no benefit. In summary, the V3C14 wins all benchmarked scenarios; the Xeon's wins are confined to non-benchmarked feature sets.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has an average benchmark score of 2921, while the Intel Xeon E-2186M scores 2912. The AMD part leads by 0.3% in this aggregate metric, and both sit at the 51st percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E-2186M win any Cinebench head-to-head test?

A: No. In the six provided head-to-head comparisons (Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, each in single-core and multi-core), the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins all six. The Intel part's wins total is zero.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD V3C14 supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, providing 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E-2186M uses DDR4 on a dual-channel bus, providing 42.7 GB/s. The AMD part offers approximately 80% more bandwidth.

Q: How do the core counts and TDPs compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2186M has 6 cores and 12 threads with a 45W TDP. The AMD V3C14 has 4 cores and 8 threads with a 15W TDP. Despite fewer cores and lower power, the AMD part wins all Cinebench tests.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E-2186M have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Xeon E-2186M includes UHD Graphics P630. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has no integrated graphics listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is listed as Active production status, while the Intel Xeon E-2186M is End-of-life. The AMD part was released on September 26, 2022; the Intel part was released on April 3, 2018.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is remarkably consistent, with the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 winning every test by nearly the same margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the V3C14 scores 1017 against the Xeon's 961, a 5.8% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story: 143 for AMD vs. 135 for Intel, a 5.9% delta. This pattern carries directly into Cinebench R20. The multi-core score is 4241 for the V3C14 and 4007 for the Xeon, again a 5.8% difference. Single-core R20 sees 598 vs. 565, a 5.8% margin.

The most important results are in Cinebench R23, the most current and demanding of the three. In multi-core, the V3C14 posts 10099, crossing the 10,000-point threshold, while the Xeon manages 9542. That is a 557-point gap, or 5.8%. In single-core, the V3C14 scores 1425 versus the Xeon's 1347, a 78-point difference (5.8% delta). The consistency of the 5.8–5.9% margin across six tests strongly suggests that the performance ratio is fixed by architectural efficiency rather than by any test-specific quirk.

Given that the Xeon has 50% more cores (6 vs. 4) and a 26% higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs. 3.80 GHz), the fact that it loses multi-core tests by 5.8% is striking. It indicates that the Zen 3+ core's IPC advantage and the DDR5 memory bandwidth (76.8 GB/s vs. 42.7 GB/s) more than compensate for the core-count deficit. The single-core results are equally telling: the V3C14's 3.80 GHz boost clock is 1 GHz lower than the Xeon's 4.80 GHz, yet it still wins by 5.8–5.9%. This is a clear demonstration of architectural superiority per clock.

The largest absolute win for the AMD part is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 557-point lead (10099 vs. 9542) is the biggest numerical gap in the set. The smallest absolute gap is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 8-point difference (143 vs. 135) is proportionally identical. In no test does the Intel part come within a 5% margin, and there is no benchmark in the provided data where the Xeon's higher core count or clock speed yields a victory. The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is the faster processor in every Cinebench workload, despite being a lower-power, fewer-core part.