AMD EPYC 9374F vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between these two processors. Across every shared benchmark, the AMD EPYC 9374F dominates, leaving the Intel Core 5 320 trailing by significant margins. The most extreme gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD part scores 69,707 against Intel’s 6,197, a delta of -91.1%. This is not a close contest; it is a categorical difference in performance capability.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the magnitude is slightly smaller. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD EPYC 9374F scores 9,841, while the Intel Core 5 320 manages 1,926, a delta of -80.4%. The gap narrows somewhat in Cinebench R15 single-core, where AMD leads 991 to 276, a -72.1% difference. Even in the least lopsided comparison, the Intel part is still behind by more than 70%.

Multi-core workloads amplify the divide even further. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows AMD at 29,276 versus Intel at 5,462, a delta of -81.3%. The R15 multi-core result is nearly identical proportionally: AMD scores 7,026, Intel scores 1,054, a -85% delta. These are not marginal victories; the AMD EPYC 9374F outclasses the Intel Core 5 320 by margins that suggest entirely different performance tiers.

The Intel Core 5 320 does not win a single head-to-head benchmark. The record shows zero wins for Intel and six wins for AMD. This is a clean sweep. The data suggests that any workload capable of utilizing the AMD EPYC 9374F’s resources will see a massive advantage, while the Intel part’s strengths, if any, lie outside the tested suite.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9374F wins every shared benchmark, so the use-case split is heavily skewed. The Cinebench suite, which stresses both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering, is a clear indicator. For rendering tasks, video encoding, scientific simulation, or any workload that scales across many threads, the AMD EPYC 9374F is the definitive choice. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, paired with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, deliver scores that are 80-91% higher than Intel’s across the board.

The Intel Core 5 320, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, is not competitive in these multi-core scenarios. However, the data does not include tests like PassMark or GeekBench for the Intel part in the head-to-head section. The Intel’s benchmark scores from its own record show a PassMark single-thread score of 4,045, which is higher than its multi-thread average, but no direct comparison exists in the shared suite. For workloads that are strictly single-threaded, the AMD EPYC 9374F still wins in the Cinebench tests, so the Intel’s only potential advantage could be in power efficiency or thermal envelope, not performance.

The Intel Core 5 320 is a mobile part with a 15W TDP, while the AMD EPYC 9374F is a server/workstation part with a 320W TDP. For mobile, battery-powered devices, the Intel is the only viable option in terms of power. But the AMD EPYC 9374F is the clear winner for any server, workstation, or compute-intensive task. The data does not show a scenario where the Intel wins a benchmark; it only shows where the Intel is the less powerful choice.

Architecture Differences

The foundational difference lies in the silicon. The Intel Core 5 320 is built on a 3 nm process node, fabricated by Intel itself, under the codename "Wildcat Lake" and the "Core 5" generation. The AMD EPYC 9374F uses a 5 nm process node, fabricated by TSMC, with the Zen 4 architecture and the codename "Genoa". This process difference is interesting: Intel uses a smaller node, which typically suggests better power efficiency, but the AMD part uses a larger node with more cores.

The core and thread counts are dramatically different. The Intel has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading. The AMD has 32 cores and 64 threads, a 5.33x core advantage and a 10.67x thread advantage. This core count is the primary driver of the multi-core benchmark deltas. The AMD’s base clock of 3.85 GHz is also higher than Intel’s 1.50 GHz base clock, though the Intel’s boost clock of 4.60 GHz is higher than AMD’s 4.30 GHz boost. The Intel boosts faster, but the AMD has more than 5 times as many cores.

Cache hierarchy differs. The Intel has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. For a 32-core process, the AMD’s per-core L2 is 32 MB total, while the Intel’s L2 is 2.5 MB total. The L3 difference is massive: 256 MB versus 6 MB, a 42.67x difference. This L3 capacity is crucial for data-heavy server workloads.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only via a single-channel memory bus, providing 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel memory bus, providing 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, nearly 8x more. The AMD also supports ECC memory, while the Intel does not. PCIe connectivity is also different: the Intel has Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD has Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The AMD offers far more expansion and I/O capability.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 69,707 versus the Intel Core 5 320’s 6,104, a delta of -91.1% in favor of AMD.

Q: Is the Intel Core 5 320 better for single-core tasks?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9374F wins every single-core benchmark. In Cinebench R20 single-core, AMD scores 4,133 against Intel’s 771, an -81.3% delta.

Q: What is the core and thread difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD EPYC 9374F has 32 cores and 64 threads. This disparity is the main reason for the large multi-core score gaps.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 320 does not.

Q: How much L3 cache does each have?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 9374F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, a 42.67x difference.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9374F is the clear performance winner across all shared benchmarks. The data shows a 72% to 91% advantage over the Intel Core 5 320 in every test, whether single-core or multi-core. For any workload that requires raw computing power, such as rendering, data analysis, or heavy multi-threaded applications, the AMD part is the only choice.

The Intel Core 5 320, however, is not a performance part. It is a mobile processor with a 15W TDP, designed for battery-powered devices with minimal thermal constraints. Its scores are low, but its power consumption is also low. For a laptop, the Intel is a reasonable option. For a server, it is not a viable alternative.

The launch MSRP of the Intel Core 5 320 is $340. The AMD EPYC 9374F has a launch MSRP of $4,850. The price gap is substantial, but so is the performance gap. The AMD part is for enterprise, the Intel part is for a power-efficient consumer device. Pick the AMD for any serious computing task, and pick the Intel only if portability and power draw are the primary concerns.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 320 | AMD EPYC 9374F |

|----------------|------------------|----------------|

| Architecture | Wildcat Lake | Zen 4 (Genoa) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Cores | 6 | 32 |

| Threads | 6 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.85 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | None |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2022-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | $4,850 |