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 R1606G review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:4116N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.5 GHzCPU socket:FP5TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 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%

6.2

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 73% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.0

Architecture

10%

4.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 73%
?

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~ £90
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 R1606G

    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 73% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    3.9

    Performance

    18%

    4.0

    Architecture

    10%

    4.4

    Memory & PCIe

    7%

    7.7

    Power & Thermal

    4%

    7.8

    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%

    6.2

    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.
    industrial/edge
    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, BMI1, BMI2
    This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 80.8% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% 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
    4
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.5 GHz
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
    CPU base clock speed
    2x 2.6 GHz
    This processor has a base clock of 2x2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 87.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
    PassMark multi-core score
    4,116
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor scores 4,116 in PassMark, which is lower than 77.4% 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.
    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/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
    This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 57.2% of processors and equal to 9.1% of processors.
    Show more
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
    Boost power (PL2)
    ?
    Tau (power duration limit)
    N/A
    Configurable TDP
    yes
    This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
    Show more

    AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G vs the average processor

    246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
    • 66.7% lower base power
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      15 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
    • Supports ECC memory
      This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
    • 66.7% lower TDP
      This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      15 W vs 45 W
    • 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
    • 2.78x cheaper
      AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
      £90 vs £250
    • 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
    • 2.78x cheaper
      AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
      £90 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
    • Supports ECC memory
      This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
    • 66.7% lower base power
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      15 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
    • 66.7% lower TDP
      This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      15 W vs 45 W
    • 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
    • 64.1% lower PassMark score
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,116 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
      4,116 vs 11,469
    • Less advanced microarchitecture
      This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Banded Kestrel vs Kaby Lake).
      Banded Kestrel vs Kaby Lake
    • 74.7% weaker multi-core performance
      This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (710 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
      710 vs 2,804.5
    • 20.5% lower boost clock
      This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
      3.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
    • 26.9% weaker single-core performance
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,871 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
      1,871 vs 2,558
    • 28.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
      This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (350 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
      350 vs 490
    • Lower base clock
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
      2x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
    • 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
    • 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
    • 64.1% lower PassMark score
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,116 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
      4,116 vs 11,469
    • 74.7% weaker multi-core performance
      This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (710 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
      710 vs 2,804.5
    • 20.5% lower boost clock
      This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
      3.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
    • 26.9% weaker single-core performance
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,871 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
      1,871 vs 2,558
    • 28.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
      This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (350 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
      350 vs 490
    • Lower base clock
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
      2x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
    • 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
    • 4 fewer CPU threads
      This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
      4 vs 8
    • 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
    • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
      This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
      8 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
    • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
      This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
      38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
    • 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
    • Narrower media codec support
      This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), 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/encode), 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
    • 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 R1606G

    • Good value for money in its price range compared to low-end Intel alternatives
    • Effective low power consumption (12-25W TDP), making it ideal for thin laptops and fanless mini-PCs
    • Solid integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics for basic multimedia and light low-end gaming
    • Supports Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT), allowing 2 physical cores to handle 4 threads for better multitasking
    • Relatively high single-core performance compared to older competing mobile chips

    What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G

    • Strictly a low-end processor, not suitable for demanding modern AAA gaming or heavy workloads
    • Limited to only 2 physical cores, which can be a bottleneck for modern multi-threaded applications
    • Uses older 14nm Zen architecture rather than more efficient Zen 2 or Zen 3 designs
    • Locked multiplier prevents easy overclocking for performance gains
    • Performance is significantly outclassed by newer 11th, 12th, and 13th Gen mobile processors

    Verdict

    The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G is a dual-core, four-thread SoC based on the 14nm Zen architecture, featuring a base clock of 2.6 GHz and a turbo boost up to 3.5 GHz. Designed for energy-efficient embedded systems, it includes integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics with 3 Compute Units clocked at 1200 MHz, 4MB of L3 cache, and a configurable TDP ranging from 12W to 25W (typically 15W). Its main pros include support for up to three independent 4K displays at 60 FPS, ECC memory compatibility for mission-critical reliability, and a significant 52% generational IPC boost over its predecessors. However, it is held back by its reliance on the older 14nm process compared to newer Zen 2 or Zen 3 alternatives and its limited multi-threaded performance due to having only two physical cores.

    Compare AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G 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 R1606G and other processors

    No results found