OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£45PassMark multi-core score:908N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.6 GHzCPU socket:FP5TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components

40%

4.4

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 69% of processors
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 51%
4.4

Technical score

Technical score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
Score components

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

4.0

Architecture

10%

3.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 74%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £45
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
    Loading category ranking...

    Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G

    Technical score
    Technical score
    4.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
    Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
    Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    4.1

    Performance

    18%

    4.0

    Architecture

    10%

    3.7

    Memory & PCIe

    7%

    6.8

    Power & Thermal

    4%

    8.0

    Platform

    1%

    6.4

    Integrated graphics

    4.4
    Reviews score
    7.2
    List score
    ?
    Value for money
    Value for money
    7.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
    When it matters
    When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Score components:

    70%

    6.1

    Overall score

    30%

    10

    Price

    7.3
    Processor type
    embedded
    This processor belongs to the embedded processor class, which is less advanced than that of 93.1% of processors and equal to that of 6.9% of processors.
    CPU socket
    FP5
    This processor uses the FP5 CPU socket, which is older than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
    Chipset
    N/A
    CPU architecture
    x86-64
    This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
    This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 67.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
    Show more
    N. of physical cores
    2
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
    CPU threads
    2
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.6 GHz
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
    CPU base clock speed
    2x 1.2 GHz
    This processor has a base clock of 2x1.2 GHz which is lower than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
    PassMark multi-core score
    908
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor scores 908 in PassMark, which is lower than 99.4% of processors.
    Show more
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
    Foundry
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm
    This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 51.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
    L1 cache
    192 KB
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
    Show more
    DDR memory version
    DDR4
    This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
    Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
    N/A
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
    Show more
    Integrated graphics
    yes
    This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
    AMD Radeon Vega 3
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon Vega 3
    This processor uses the Radeon Vega 3 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 67% of processors and equal to that in 1.6% of processors.
    Integrated GPU execution units
    3
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has 3 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 92.9% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    300 MHz
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode)
    This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 56.7% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
    Show more
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    6 W
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a TDP of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
    Base power (PL1)
    6 W
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a base power of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
    Boost power (PL2)
    ?
    Tau (power duration limit)
    N/A
    Configurable TDP
    no
    This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
    Show more

    AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G vs the average processor

    246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
    • 86.7% lower base power
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      6 W vs 45 W
    • 86.7% lower TDP
      This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      6 W vs 45 W
    • 5 °C higher temperature limit
      This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
      105 °C vs 100 °C
    • More extensive crypto acceleration
      This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
      AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
    • 5.56x cheaper
      AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G is cheaper than the average processor (£45 vs £250).
      £45 vs £250
    • 16.4% smaller die size
      This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (148 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
      148 mm² vs 177 mm²
    • 8.1% more L3 per core
      This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
      2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
    • More advanced foundry
      This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
      GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
    • 5.56x cheaper
      AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G is cheaper than the average processor (£45 vs £250).
      £45 vs £250
    • More extensive crypto acceleration
      This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
      AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
    • 16.4% smaller die size
      This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (148 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
      148 mm² vs 177 mm²
    • 8.1% more L3 per core
      This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
      2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
    • More advanced foundry
      This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
      GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
    • 86.7% lower base power
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      6 W vs 45 W
    • 86.7% lower TDP
      This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      6 W vs 45 W
    • 5 °C higher temperature limit
      This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
      105 °C vs 100 °C
    • 92.1% lower PassMark score
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (908 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
      908 vs 11,469
    • 76.4% weaker single-core performance
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (603 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
      603 vs 2,558
    • 40.9% lower boost clock
      This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
      2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
    • 4 fewer CPU cores
      This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
      2 vs 6
    • Less advanced microarchitecture
      This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Banded Kestrel vs Kaby Lake).
      Banded Kestrel vs Kaby Lake
    • Lower base clock
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
      2x1.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
    • 6 fewer CPU threads
      This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
      2 vs 8
    • No configurable TDP
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
    • Weaker security extensions
      This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Boot, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
      AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Boot, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
    • Older TPM support
      This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
      fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
    • 92.1% lower PassMark score
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (908 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
      908 vs 11,469
    • 76.4% weaker single-core performance
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (603 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
      603 vs 2,558
    • 40.9% lower boost clock
      This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
      2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
    • 4 fewer CPU cores
      This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
      2 vs 6
    • Lower base clock
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
      2x1.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
    • 6 fewer CPU threads
      This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
      2 vs 8
    • 2 fewer performance cores
      This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
      2 vs 4
    • No simultaneous multithreading
      This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
    • 16 lower clock multiplier
      This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (12 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
      12 vs 28
    • 70% lower bus transfer rate
      This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (2.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
      2.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
    • Less advanced microarchitecture
      This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Banded Kestrel vs Kaby Lake).
      Banded Kestrel vs Kaby Lake
    • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
      This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
      1 MB vs 3 MB
    • 16.7% larger process node
      This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
      14 nm vs 12 nm
    • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
      This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
      4 MB vs 9 MB
    • 50% smaller L1 cache
      This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (192 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
      192 KB vs 384 KB
    • 59.1% lower memory bandwidth
      This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (19.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
      19.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
    • 12 fewer PCIe lanes
      This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (4 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
      4 vs 16
    • 25% lower memory speed
      This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
      2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
    • 50% less memory capacity
      This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
      32 GB vs 64 GB
    • Lower JEDEC memory speed
      This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
      DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
    • 1 fewer memory channels
      This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
      1 vs 2
    • Narrower media codec support
      This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
      H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
    • 87.5% fewer GPU execution units
      This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (3 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
      3 vs 24
    • No configurable TDP
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
    • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
      This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
      105 °C vs 100 °C

    Third-party reviews

    What customers like about AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G

    • Extremely low power consumption with a 6W TDP, ideal for fanless designs
    • Integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics provide decent multimedia and 4K display support for its class
    • Cost-effective solution for light embedded tasks like digital signage and thin clients
    • Supports ECC memory, which is rare for entry-level ultra-low-power chips
    • Passive cooling capability reduces mechanical failure points in industrial environments

    What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G

    • Limited to 2 cores and 2 threads, which significantly hampers multitasking
    • Lower clock speeds (1.2 GHz base) compared to slightly higher TDP models in the same family
    • Single-channel memory interface limits overall system bandwidth
    • 14nm Zen architecture is less efficient than newer 7nm or 5nm alternatives
    • Not suitable for demanding applications or modern gaming due to low processing power

    Verdict

    The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G is an ultra-low-power dual-core processor based on the 14nm 'Zen' architecture, designed for efficient fanless systems in the mini-PC and industrial markets. It features 2 cores and 2 threads with a 1.2 GHz base clock that boosts up to 2.6 GHz, integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics with 3 compute units running at 1.0 GHz, and 4 MB of L3 cache. Its primary advantage is a remarkably low 6W Thermal Design Power (TDP) and support for ECC memory and up to two 4K displays, making it ideal for high-reliability, energy-efficient applications like digital signage. However, its main drawbacks include a lack of simultaneous multithreading (only 2 threads), a single-channel DDR4-2400 memory interface, and relatively low processing speeds compared to other R1000 series models.

    Compare AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G with other processors

    1Product to compare no. 1
    VS
    2Product to compare no. 2
    VS
    3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

    Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen Embedded R1102G and other processors

    No results found