AMD Ryzen 3 110 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 5 320 holds a significant advantage in the recorded benchmark data, while the AMD Ryzen 3 110 has no benchmark scores listed in the database. This asymmetry means the available head-to-head comparison relies entirely on the Intel part's measured results, which place it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs tracked. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 sits at the 50th percentile, though this figure reflects its position among all processors rather than a direct measured comparison.

The Intel Core 5 320 delivers an average benchmark score of 18,023 across the recorded tests. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, scores 17,994, putting the Intel part 0.2% ahead. The Intel Core 5 120U trails at 17,898, a 0.7% gap in favor of the Core 5 320. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT scores 17,891, again 0.7% behind. The Intel Core i5-1334U leads the Core 5 320 by 0.7% with a score of 18,154. These margins are narrow, indicating the Core 5 320 performs in a tightly contested band of mobile and older desktop processors.

In Cinebench R23, the Core 5 320 records a multi-core score of 6,197 and a single-core score of 1,926. The single-core result is particularly strong relative to its own multi-core performance, suggesting the processor favors lightly threaded workloads. Cinebench R20 shows 5,462 multi-core and 771 single-core. Cinebench R15 shows 1,054 multi-core and 276 single-core. The progression across these versions follows expected scaling patterns, with newer tests placing more stress on sustained throughput.

PassMark results reinforce the multi-threaded capability. The multithread score stands at 15,450, while single-thread scores appear twice in the database at 4,045 under two test labels. Integer math scores 32,323, floating point math scores 42,440, and extended instructions score 13,262. Data compression reaches 148,779, while data encryption hits 10,984. Prime number finding scores 110, physics scores 1,221, and random string sorting scores 18,038.

The data compression score is the standout figure, exceeding the multithread score by a wide margin. This indicates the Core 5 320 handles compression workloads particularly well. Floating point math also outperforms integer math by roughly 31%, which points to a design optimized for FPU-heavy tasks. The extended instructions score of 13,262 suggests modern SIMD workloads benefit from this processor.

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 lacks any recorded benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score reads as zero, and its nearest rivals list is empty. This does not necessarily indicate poor performance; it simply means no measured data exists for the database to report. The 50th percentile ranking likely reflects its expected position based on specifications rather than direct testing.

# FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 320 compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Core 5 320 averages 18,023. The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 scores 17,994 (0.2% lower), the Intel Core 5 120U scores 17,898 (0.7% lower), the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT scores 17,891 (0.7% lower), and the Intel Core i5-1334U scores 18,154 (0.7% higher). The Core 5 320 sits essentially at parity with all four.

Q: What is the strongest recorded workload for the Intel Core 5 320?

A: Data compression leads with a PassMark score of 148,779. This is substantially higher than its multithread score of 15,450, indicating the processor excels at compression tasks relative to its general threading performance.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 3 110 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Ryzen 3 110 has an empty benchmarks array, an average score of zero, and no nearest rivals listed. All recorded performance data belongs to the Intel Core 5 320.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multithreaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 records a PassMark multithread score of 15,450 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6,197. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has no recorded multithread scores, so no direct comparison is possible from the database.

Q: What is the Intel Core 5 320's single-thread performance?

A: PassMark single-thread scores 4,045. Cinebench R23 single-core scores 1,926, Cinebench R20 single-core scores 771, and Cinebench R15 single-core scores 276.

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 320 rank among all CPUs?

A: The Core 5 320 sits in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs tracked. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 sits in the 50th percentile.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 320 wins every category where measured data exists. Its 6 cores and 6 threads provide a solid foundation for multi-threaded tasks, as reflected in the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6,197 and PassMark multithread score of 15,450. Users running rendering, video encoding, or other parallel workloads would see the benefits of these scores. The floating point math result of 42,440 further supports scientific and engineering applications that rely on FPU throughput.

The single-thread results, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 1,926 and PassMark single-thread at 4,045, make the Core 5 320 suitable for everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications. Many productivity tools still rely on one or two threads, and the recorded scores indicate this processor handles those tasks comfortably. The data encryption score of 10,984 suggests reasonable cryptographic throughput for encrypted storage or VPN workloads.

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 cannot be assigned wins in any category due to the absence of recorded benchmarks. However, its specification profile hints at strengths the database cannot confirm. The Radeon 660M integrated graphics could make it competitive in GPU-accelerated tasks, though no measured scores support this. The 8 MB shared L3 cache and 4 cores with 8 threads give it a symmetric thread layout that suits certain workloads, but again, no data confirms this.

For users who need measurable performance, the Core 5 320 is the only option with recorded results. Its 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs places it above the median, and its nearest rivals confirm it trades blows with established processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core i5-1334U. The Ryzen 3 110 remains an unknown quantity in the database, with no data to support any performance claims.

# Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 offers 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Intel part reaches a higher boost frequency but starts from a much lower base.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Ryzen 3 110 draws 28 watts, while the Core 5 320 draws 15 watts. The Intel part delivers more cores and a higher boost clock within a lower TDP envelope, which indicates a more power-efficient design. The process node supports this: AMD uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 3 nm process from its own foundry. The smaller node gives Intel a density and efficiency advantage.

Memory support diverges as well. The Ryzen 3 110 supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only in single-channel mode, with bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The AMD part offers higher memory bandwidth and dual-channel operation, while the Intel part adds LPDDR5X support for mobile power savings. ECC memory is supported on the Ryzen 3 110 but not on the Core 5 320.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Ryzen 3 110 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The AMD part offers significantly more expansion bandwidth, which matters for discrete GPUs or NVMe storage. The sockets also differ: the Ryzen 3 110 uses AMD Socket FP7, while the Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516. Neither socket is interchangeable.

Integrated graphics differ. The Ryzen 3 110 uses a Radeon 660M. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Both target mobile segments, but the database provides no graphics benchmark scores for either.

# Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 uses the Zen 3+ architecture under the Rembrandt-R codename. This is a refined version of Zen 3, produced on a 6 nm TSMC process. The die size measures 210 mm². The cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The 4-core, 8-thread configuration with simultaneous multithreading gives the Ryzen part two threads per core, which can improve utilization in threaded workloads.

The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm Intel process. The database does not list a formal architecture name, but the generation field identifies it as Core 5 (Wildcat Lake). The cache structure differs fundamentally: L1 is listed as 192 KB total, L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The Intel part uses 6 cores and 6 threads with no hyperthreading, meaning each core handles exactly one thread. This simpler thread mapping can reduce scheduling overhead in some workloads but limits total thread count.

The process node difference is significant. Intel's 3 nm process is two generations ahead of AMD's 6 nm node in terms of feature size, and this shows in the TDP figures. The Core 5 320 delivers 6 cores at 4.60 GHz boost within 15 watts, while the Ryzen 3 110 delivers 4 cores at 4.30 GHz boost within 28 watts. The Intel part achieves higher core count and higher boost clock at nearly half the TDP.

Memory architecture also reflects the design philosophies. The Ryzen 3 110 uses dual-channel DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, which benefits integrated graphics and memory-sensitive workloads. The Core 5 320 uses single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, which lowers power consumption but reduces peak memory throughput. ECC support on the AMD part targets reliability-conscious users, while the Intel part omits it.

The Radeon 660M in the Ryzen 3 110 suggests stronger integrated graphics capability, though the database provides no scores. The Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores represents Intel's latest integrated graphics architecture. Both parts target the mobile segment, as indicated by their market segment fields and sockets. Production status is active for both, with the Ryzen 3 110 releasing on September 30, 2025, and the Core 5 320 releasing on April 15, 2026. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $340, while the AMD part has no listed launch MSRP.

The architectural split is clear: AMD prioritizes memory bandwidth, dual-channel operation, ECC support, and simultaneous multithreading. Intel prioritizes process efficiency, higher boost frequency, lower power draw, and a more compact cache hierarchy. The recorded benchmarks only cover the Intel part, so the practical impact of these architectural choices on the AMD side remains unmeasured in the database.