AMD Ryzen 3 7320C vs Intel Core i3-10320 Comparison

The Intel Core i3-10320 and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C are both 4-core, 8-thread processors, and the database places them in the same neighborhood overall: identical 69th percentile rankings and average benchmark scores of 14852 for the Intel chip versus 14277 for the AMD part. Beneath that near-parity, however, the recorded data shows a decisive pattern: the desktop Comet Lake part wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Mendocino mobile chip wins exactly where its newer platform features pay off, encryption, integer math, and compression.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i3-10320 sweeps every rendering test, and by an unusually consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 it posts 855 multi-core and 120 single-core points against 708 and 99 for the Ryzen 3 7320C, advantages of 20.8 and 21.2 percent respectively. Cinebench R20 repeats the story: 3564 versus 2950 multi-core (20.8 percent) and 503 versus 416 single-core (20.9 percent). Cinebench R23 lands at 8486 versus 7025 multi-core and 1198 versus 991 single-core, again roughly 21 percent in Intel's favor on both counts. That consistency across three Cinebench generations is meaningful: it indicates a real architectural throughput gap, not a test-specific quirk.

PassMark's broader suite mostly confirms the picture. The overall multithread score goes to Intel 9982 to 8265, a 20.8 percent win that mirrors the rendering gap. Single-thread favors Intel 2841 to 2439, a 16.5 percent margin. Physics lands at 689 versus 500 (37.8 percent), floating point math at 19483 versus 14071 (38.5 percent), and prime number search at 32 versus 18 (77.8 percent). The most lopsided result of the entire comparison is extended instructions: 9284 for the i3-10320 against 3663 for the 7320C, a 153.5 percent gap. Random string sorting is closer, 17821 to 16973, still an Intel win by 5 percent.

The Ryzen 3 7320C does win three tests, and two of them are not close. Data encryption is its standout: 5443 versus 3458, a 36.5 percent victory that points directly at its newer instruction-set support. Integer math goes to AMD 32247 to 31071 (3.6 percent), and data compression also favors the Ryzen chip, 144465 versus 140255 (2.9 percent). These are the workloads where Mendocino's modern feature set and memory subsystem overcome its much lower clock speeds.

Context from each chip's rival list sharpens the picture. The i3-10320's average score sits within 1.1 percent of the Intel Core i3-1315U, essentially matches the Intel Core i7-9750H (-0.2 percent) and AMD EPYC 74F3 (-0.4 percent), and beats the Intel Core i5-9600K by 1.7 percent. The 7320C clusters with the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U (-0.3 percent), Intel Core 7 160UL (0.3 percent), AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 (-0.4 percent), and Intel Core i5-10400F (0.7 percent), a grouping dominated by mobile and embedded parts.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from opposite ends of the market and different eras of silicon. The i3-10320 is a desktop Comet Lake design on Intel's 14 nm process, released in 2020, running a 3.80 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost clock with a 91 W TDP on Socket 1200. The Ryzen 3 7320C is a mobile Mendocino design on TSMC's 6 nm node, released in 2023, with a 2.40 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost inside a 15 W TDP on Socket FT6. The clock gap explains most of the rendering results; the power gap explains why the two land in the same overall percentile despite it.

Cache configurations diverge notably. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core, but AMD doubles the L2 at 512 KB per core versus Intel's 256 KB, while Intel doubles the L3 with 8 MB shared against AMD's 4 MB. Memory support is the sharpest platform split: the Intel chip uses DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD part uses LPDDR5 on a dual-channel bus delivering 88.0 GB/s, more than double. That bandwidth advantage is a plausible driver of the Ryzen chip's encryption and compression wins.

PCIe differs too: 16 CPU lanes of Gen 3 on Intel against 4 CPU lanes of Gen 3 on AMD, which matters for discrete GPU and storage configurations on the desktop side. Integrated graphics differ by design intent, UHD Graphics 630 on the i3-10320 and Radeon 610M on the 7320C. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier or ECC support. The AMD die measures 100 mm²; the Intel die size is not recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data delivers a clear split by workload, not by brand loyalty. For rendering, physics simulation, floating point compute, and general single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel Core i3-10320 is the stronger performer, typically by about 21 percent in rendering and up to 153.5 percent in extended instruction throughput. Its rival list shows it trading blows with parts like the Core i7-9750H and beating the Core i5-9600K on average score.

The AMD Ryzen 3 7320C is the pick when encryption throughput, integer-heavy code, or compression work dominates, and when the 15 W envelope and LPDDR5 bandwidth of its mobile platform fit the system design. It wins encryption by 36.5 percent despite losing most other tests, and its average score of 14277 keeps it competitive overall, within a fraction of a percent of the Ryzen 5 3501U and Core i5-10400F.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the i3-10320 in Cinebench R23 multi-core? A: It scores 8486 versus 7025 for the Ryzen 3 7320C, a 20.8 percent advantage.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 7320C win any benchmarks? A: Yes, three: data encryption (5443 vs 3458, 36.5 percent), integer math (32247 vs 31071, 3.6 percent), and data compression (144465 vs 140255, 2.9 percent).

Q: Which CPU has higher memory bandwidth? A: The Ryzen 3 7320C, with 88.0 GB/s from LPDDR5, more than double the i3-10320's 42.7 GB/s from DDR4.

Q: How do their overall database rankings compare? A: Both sit in the 69th percentile versus all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 14852 (Intel) and 14277 (AMD).

Q: What is the TDP difference? A: The i3-10320 is rated at 91 W and the Ryzen 3 7320C at 15 W.

Q: Which has more L3 cache? A: The i3-10320, with 8 MB shared versus 4 MB shared on the Ryzen 3 7320C; AMD counters with 512 KB of L2 per core versus Intel's 256 KB.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-10320 is the choice for rendering workloads, where it wins every Cinebench test by roughly 21 percent, and for simulation-style compute, where it leads physics by 37.8 percent and floating point math by 38.5 percent. Anyone running workloads that lean on extended instruction throughput should note the 153.5 percent gap in that PassMark test, the largest in the dataset. Its stronger single-thread score (2841 vs 2439) and higher boost clock also favor lightly threaded desktop applications.

The AMD Ryzen 3 7320C is the choice for security-sensitive and integer-heavy workloads: encryption performance leads by 36.5 percent, integer math by 3.6 percent, and compression by 2.9 percent. Its 15 W TDP makes it the only option of the two for thermally constrained mobile designs, and its LPDDR5 subsystem with 88.0 GB/s of bandwidth backs up those wins. For buyers comparing against the wider market, its nearest rivals are mobile and embedded parts, while the i3-10320's rivals include desktop chips like the Core i5-9600K.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Comet Lake (Intel) versus Zen 2, Mendocino (AMD)
• Process node: 14 nm at Intel versus 6 nm at TSMC
• Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile
• Release date: 2020 for the i3-10320 versus 2023 for the 7320C
• Clocks: 3.80 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost versus 2.40 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost
• TDP: 91 W versus 15 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1200 versus AMD Socket FT6
• L2 cache: 256 KB per core versus 512 KB per core
• L3 cache: 8 MB shared versus 4 MB shared
• Memory: DDR4 at 42.7 GB/s versus LPDDR5 at 88.0 GB/s, both dual-channel
• PCIe: Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes versus Gen 3 with 4 CPU lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 630 versus Radeon 610M
• Die size: not recorded for Intel; 100 mm² for AMD

Cores, threads (4 and 8 on both), ECC support (absent on both), and multiplier unlocking (locked on both) are identical, which makes the specification gaps above the deciding factors alongside the benchmark record.