AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G occupies a specific niche in the processor landscape, blending a 2-core/4-thread Zen architecture with a 10 W TDP. Its benchmark data reveals a part designed for efficiency and basic productivity rather than high-end performance, sitting at the 24th percentile among all CPUs. The average benchmark score of 919 places it in direct competition with a set of older desktop and mobile parts, making its performance profile a study in how far low-power silicon has come, and where it still lags.

Benchmark Performance

The R1305G’s benchmark results paint a clear picture of a low-power part with modest compute capabilities. In Cinebench R23, the processor scores 377 points in single-core and 2670 points in multi-core. The single-core score is particularly telling, as it represents a 14.2% share of the multi-core score per thread, which indicates that the two physical cores with simultaneous multithreading are scaling reasonably well under load. The R20 results follow a similar pattern: 158 points single-core and 1121 points multi-core, with the multi-core figure being roughly 7.1 times the single-core result, which is expected for a 2-core/4-thread part with a boost clock of 2.80 GHz from a 1500 MHz base.

When compared to its nearest rivals, the R1305G’s average score of 919 is virtually identical to the Intel Core i3-4350T and the AMD PRO A10-9700E, both scoring 919 with a 0% delta. The AMD Athlon Silver 3050U trails slightly at 917, a 0.2% deficit, while the AMD FX-4320 leads at 921, a 0.2% advantage. These deltas are negligible in real-world terms, suggesting that the R1305G offers performance parity with a mix of older desktop chips and a newer mobile part. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2670 is about 2.9% higher than the R20 multi-core score of 1121 when adjusted for the different workload versions, indicating consistent scaling across benchmark generations.

The percentile rank of 24 means the R1305G outperforms roughly a quarter of all tested CPUs, which is a sobering statistic for any demanding workload. The data shows that while the processor can handle basic tasks, its raw compute throughput is firmly in entry-level territory, with the single-core performance of 377 in R23 being a bottleneck for lightly-threaded applications that rely on high per-core speed.

Power and Thermals

The R1305G carries a TDP of 10 W, which is exceptionally low and defines its entire thermal and power profile. This figure places it in the ultra-low-power class, a category typically reserved for fanless designs, thin-and-light laptops, and embedded systems where heat dissipation is a primary constraint. The 10 W TDP means that a simple passive cooler or a very small active fan is sufficient to maintain operating temperatures under sustained load, as the processor’s power draw never approaches the levels seen in mainstream desktop parts.

From a thermal standpoint, the 10 W TDP implies that the R1305G can be integrated into compact chassis with minimal airflow without risking thermal throttling. The 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, while not cutting-edge, is mature and well-understood, allowing for predictable thermal behavior. The integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics further complicate the thermal picture, as the iGPU shares the same power budget, meaning that sustained graphics workloads could reduce available headroom for the CPU cores. For system integrators, the 10 W TDP opens up design possibilities that higher-power parts cannot match, such as passively cooled industrial PCs or fanless media servers, though the trade-off is the limited computational performance documented in the benchmark scores.

How It Compares

Intel Core i3-4350T: The R1305G matches this Intel part with an identical average score of 919 and a 0% delta. The i3-4350T is a desktop chip from a previous generation, and the fact that a 10 W embedded part can equal its performance demonstrates the efficiency gains of newer architectures. However, the Intel part likely has a higher TDP, meaning the R1305G achieves the same throughput with significantly less power, though the benchmark data does not capture thermal or power efficiency directly.

AMD PRO A10-9700E: This AMD desktop processor also posts a 919 average score with a 0% delta, making it a direct performance peer. The A10-9700E is based on a different, older architecture, and the R1305G’s ability to match it while drawing far less power (10 W TDP vs. an unspecified higher figure) suggests that Zen’s instructions-per-clock advantage compensates for the lower core count or clock speeds. The data shows no performance gap, but the power envelope is a clear differentiator.

AMD Athlon Silver 3050U: The R1305G edges out this mobile part by 0.2%, with scores of 919 versus 917. The Athlon Silver 3050U is a newer 2-core/4-thread processor, and the near-identical scores indicate that both parts are constrained by similar architectural limitations in multi-threaded workloads. The 0.2% delta is within margin of error, so the data suggests these two are functionally interchangeable in performance, though they target different sockets and platforms.

AMD FX-4320: The FX-4320 posts a 921 average score, a 0.2% lead over the R1305G. This is a notable comparison because the FX-4320 is a quad-core desktop part from the Bulldozer era, and the R1305G with half the physical cores nearly matches it. This underscores the significant per-core performance advantage of Zen over the older FX architecture, as the R1305G’s higher IPC compensates for its lower core count. The 0.2% delta is tiny, but the architectural gulf is vast.

FAQ

Q: What is the R1305G’s multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The processor scores 2670 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which places it at the 24th percentile among all CPUs, indicating entry-level multi-threaded throughput.

Q: How does the R1305G compare to the Intel Core i3-4350T?

A: Both processors have an identical average benchmark score of 919, resulting in a 0% delta, meaning they offer equivalent overall performance in the data.

Q: Does the R1305G support ECC memory?

A: No, the FACT PACK lists ECC memory support as false, so the processor does not support ECC DDR4 memory.

Q: What is the boost clock speed of the R1305G?

A: The processor has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 2.80 GHz, allowing it to increase frequency under load.

Q: What integrated graphics does the R1305G include?

A: It features Radeon Vega 3 integrated graphics, which share the same 10 W TDP as the CPU cores.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does the R1305G provide?

A: The processor offers PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU only, limiting expansion options compared to desktop parts with more lanes.

Platform and Compatibility

The R1305G uses the AMD Socket FP5, a BGA-style socket that is soldered to the motherboard, meaning it is not upgradeable in the traditional sense. This socket is designed for embedded and mobile platforms, reinforcing the processor’s role in systems where longevity and fixed specifications are more important than user-upgradeability. The memory support is DDR4 with a dual-channel bus, providing a maximum memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported, which may be a consideration for certain embedded applications that require error correction, though the low TDP suggests the target market may not prioritize this feature.

PCIe connectivity is limited to Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, which is sufficient for a single NVMe SSD and a low-power GPU or other peripherals, but it constrains multi-GPU or high-expansion configurations. The platform is based on the Zen architecture (codename "Zen" with the "Banded Kestrel" generation), built on a 14 nm process with 3,500 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The production status is Active, with a release date of 2020-02-24, indicating that this is a current product for embedded designs. The upgrade path is essentially non-existent due to the soldered nature of the socket, so system designers must select the R1305G with the full knowledge that the CPU cannot be swapped later.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The R1305G’s benchmark scores reveal a notable split between single-thread and multi-thread performance. In Cinebench R23, the single-core score of 377 is just 14.1% of the multi-core score of 2670, which is a lower ratio than what a perfectly scaling 2-core/4-thread processor might achieve, indicating some overhead in multi-threaded coordination. The R20 data shows a similar pattern, with single-core at 158 and multi-core at 1121, a ratio of 14.1% again. This consistency suggests that the processor’s multi-threaded scaling is limited by factors such as shared L3 cache (4 MB) and memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s), rather than core architecture.

For real-world workloads, this means that the R1305G will feel more capable in single-threaded tasks like web browsing, document editing, and light coding, where the 2.80 GHz boost clock can be fully utilized. Multi-threaded tasks, such as video encoding or 3D rendering, will see better utilization of both cores, but the absolute scores (2670 in R23) are low, so these tasks will take considerably longer than on a mainstream desktop processor. The data implies that the R1305G is best suited for workloads that are primarily single-threaded or lightly threaded, with occasional bursts of multi-threaded activity, rather than sustained parallel processing.

Who Should Consider It

The R1305G is a processor for specific use cases rather than general-purpose computing. Its 10 W TDP and integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics make it a candidate for fanless embedded systems, such as digital signage, thin clients, or industrial controllers, where the low power draw is a critical design constraint. The single-core score of 377 in R23 indicates that it can handle basic office productivity, email, and web browsing without significant lag, making it suitable for kiosks or point-of-sale terminals that run lightweight applications.

For gaming, the R1305G is not a viable option for modern titles, as its multi-core score of 2670 in R23 is far below what contemporary games require, and the Vega 3 iGPU is not designed for 3D-heavy workloads. Creation workloads, such as video editing or 3D modeling, are similarly impractical due to the low multi-threaded throughput, though basic photo editing or audio processing might be tolerable. The 24th percentile ranking underscores that this is a niche product, and the data suggests it should only be considered by system integrators who prioritize power efficiency and compact form factors over raw performance, with the understanding that its nearest rivals offer nearly identical compute capabilities.