AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I vs Intel Core i9-9880H Comparison

The Intel Core i9-9880H and AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I are both 8-core, 16-thread processors, yet they serve fundamentally different market segments. The data shows a clear performance edge for the AMD part across every benchmark in this comparison, despite the Intel chip’s higher boost clock and older, more power-hungry design. With both processors landing in the 54th percentile of all CPUs, the competition is tight, but the Ryzen Embedded V3C18I consistently outperforms the Core i9-9880H by roughly 3% in both single-core and multi-core tests, a margin that is uniform across Cinebench versions.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I wins all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1662 against the Intel Core i9-9880H’s 1614, a 2.9% advantage. The lead is consistent in Cinebench R20 (698 vs 677) and Cinebench R15 (167 vs 162).

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I also leads here, winning all three multi-core tests. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11777 beats the Intel Core i9-9880H’s 11437 by 2.9%. The delta is identical in Cinebench R20 (4946 vs 4803) and Cinebench R15 (1187 vs 1152).

Q: Do they have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both processors feature 8 cores and 16 threads. This parity makes the benchmark deltas particularly meaningful, as the performance gap is not due to a difference in parallel processing resources.

Q: What are the key differences in memory support?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I supports DDR5 memory with ECC, while the Intel Core i9-9880H is limited to DDR4 without ECC. The AMD part also has a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s compared to Intel’s 42.7 GB/s.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel Core i9-9880H has a TDP of 45 watts. This threefold difference in thermal design power is a major differentiator, despite similar benchmark scores.

Q: Are there differences in PCIe support?

A: Yes. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Intel Core i9-9880H is limited to PCIe Gen 3. This gives AMD a modern I/O advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I wins every single benchmark in this head-to-head comparison, making the use-case split clear. For any workload that relies on CPU computation—whether single-threaded responsiveness or fully parallel multi-core rendering—the data points to the AMD part. Its wins are narrow but consistent, with a 2.9% to 3.0% margin across all six Cinebench tests. This makes it the preferable choice for applications like video encoding, 3D rendering, and software compilation, where even a small percentage gain translates to measurable time savings over long runs.

The Intel Core i9-9880H, despite losing all benchmarks, still has a functional niche. Its market segment is mobile, and its socket is Intel BGA 1440, which means it is designed for laptops. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I, conversely, is a desktop-class embedded part on AMD Socket FP7. The Intel chip’s 4.80 GHz boost clock is higher than the AMD part’s 3.80 GHz, which could theoretically help in lightly-threaded, bursty tasks, but the benchmark data does not support this—AMD wins single-core tests anyway. The real advantage for Intel is ecosystem fit: if a system requires an Intel BGA 1440 platform, the i9-9880H is the relevant choice, not because it is faster, but because it is the compatible part.

For embedded or desktop designs where power is at a premium, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I is the clear winner. Its 15-watt TDP is a fraction of Intel’s 45-watt rating, allowing for smaller cooling solutions and lower operating costs in fanless or passively cooled systems. The AMD part also brings modern features like DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 4, which are absent on the older Intel platform. In short, the AMD processor wins on performance, power efficiency, and I/O connectivity, while the Intel processor’s only claim is its mobile-specific socket and higher burst clock, which does not translate to a benchmark victory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is remarkably consistent, showing a uniform performance gap across all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I scores 11777, while the Intel Core i9-9880H scores 11437, yielding a 2.9% delta in AMD’s favor. This pattern repeats exactly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where AMD’s 4946 beats Intel’s 4803, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where AMD’s 1187 edges out Intel’s 1152. The consistency of the 2.9% delta suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency advantage for AMD, rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-core results tell the same story with slightly larger margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD part scores 1662 against Intel’s 1614, a 2.9% lead. The delta grows to 3.0% in Cinebench R20 single-core, where AMD scores 698 versus Intel’s 677, and remains at 3.0% in Cinebench R15 single-core, with AMD at 167 and Intel at 162. These are small but definitive wins. The Intel chip’s 4.80 GHz boost clock is 1.0 GHz higher than AMD’s 3.80 GHz boost, yet AMD still wins, indicating that the Zen 3+ architecture delivers more instructions per clock than Intel’s Coffee Lake design.

Geekbench data is available only for the Intel part, which scores 6248 multi-core and 1372 single-core. Without a corresponding AMD Geekbench score, a direct comparison is impossible, but the Cinebench results are sufficient to establish the performance hierarchy. The average benchmark score for the Intel Core i9-9880H is 3433, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I averages 3406. This puts the Intel part at a 0.8% higher average score, but this is skewed by the inclusion of Geekbench results that have no AMD counterpart. In the six directly comparable tests, AMD wins all six, with deltas ranging from 2.9% to 3.0%. The data is unambiguous: for any given Cinebench workload, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I is the faster processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every specification except core count, thread count, and L3 cache size. Both have 8 cores and 16 threads, and both share 16 MB of L3 cache. Beyond that, the differences are substantial. The base clock differs dramatically: Intel runs at 2.30 GHz, while AMD runs at 1900.00 MHz (1.90 GHz). The boost clock also favors Intel, with 4.80 GHz versus AMD’s 3.80 GHz. Despite Intel’s clock advantage, AMD wins all benchmarks, pointing to architectural superiority.

The TDP is a major differentiator, with Intel rated at 45 watts and AMD at just 15 watts. This makes the AMD part far more suitable for power-constrained embedded environments. The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses BGA 1440, while AMD uses Socket FP7. The process node also differs, with Intel on 14 nm and AMD on 6 nm, fabricated by TSMC. Intel’s die size is listed at 149 mm², while AMD’s is not provided. Cache hierarchies differ in L2 cache, where Intel has 256 KB per core and AMD has 512 KB per core, though both have 64 KB of L1 per core.

Memory support is a stark contrast. Intel supports DDR4 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while AMD supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. AMD also supports ECC memory, which Intel does not. PCIe capability is another generational leap: Intel offers PCIe Gen 3, while AMD offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well, with Intel including UHD 630 and AMD listing no integrated graphics. Market segments also separate the two, with Intel classified as Mobile and AMD as Desktop. Finally, the Intel part is end-of-life, while the AMD part is active in production.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors explains the benchmark results. The Intel Core i9-9880H is built on the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-HR codename, using a 14 nm process from Intel’s own foundry. This is a mature but aging design, optimized for mobile performance at the time of its 2019 release. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I, by contrast, uses the Zen 3+ architecture with the codename Rembrandt, fabricated on a 6 nm process by TSMC. The newer process node and architecture deliver better performance-per-watt, which is evident in the benchmark wins despite the lower clock speeds.

The cache layout reveals another difference. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 16 MB of shared L3 cache, but the L2 cache is doubled on the AMD part, with 512 KB per core versus Intel’s 256 KB per core. This larger L2 cache can improve data locality and reduce latency for frequently accessed data, contributing to AMD’s single-core wins. The AMD part also supports modern memory technologies, including DDR5 and ECC, which are absent on the Intel part. The memory bandwidth advantage, 76.8 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s, is a direct result of the newer DDR5 standard and is a significant architectural upgrade.

The I/O architecture also differs. AMD’s PCIe Gen 4 support with 20 lanes (CPU only) doubles the bandwidth available for peripherals compared to Intel’s PCIe Gen 3, which is a critical factor for embedded applications that need fast NVMe storage or high-speed data acquisition. The AMD part’s 15-watt TDP is enabled by the 6 nm process and Zen 3+ efficiency, while Intel’s 45-watt TDP reflects the older 14 nm process. The Intel part includes integrated UHD 630 graphics, which AMD does not list, but this is a minor feature compared to the substantial architectural differences in memory, I/O, and process technology. Overall, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C18I is a more modern, more efficient, and faster processor, despite being released three years later.