AMD Ryzen 5 7400F vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F records an average benchmark score of 32750, while the Intel Core 5 320 records 18023. The AMD part sits at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 72nd percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F scores 21765 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, versus 6197 for the Intel Core 5 320. This represents a 251.2% advantage for the AMD processor, the largest single delta across all head-to-head tests.

Q: Are there any tests where the Intel Core 5 320 wins?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 5 320 wins in both PassMark single-thread tests. It scores 4045 in PassMark single_thread and singlethread (both entries record the same value), against 3689 for the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, a margin of 8.8%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: Both processors have 6 cores. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F supports 12 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 supports 6 threads, meaning the AMD part has simultaneous multithreading and the Intel part does not.

Q: What process nodes are used by each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process from Intel.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has a launch MSRP of $229, and the Intel Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F belongs to the 7000 series and is built on the Zen 4 architecture under the Raphael codename. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename. These are fundamentally different design approaches: the AMD part is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop processor built for socketed AM5 motherboards, while the Intel part is a 6-core, 6-thread mobile processor soldered to a BGA 1516 package. The thread count disparity is the first major architectural divergence, as the AMD processor can process two threads per core while the Intel processor cannot.

The manufacturing nodes differ considerably. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, packing 6,570 million transistors into a 71 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 320 is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel, though the database does not list its transistor count or die size. The smaller process node gives Intel a potential density advantage, but the benchmark data shows that architectural efficiency matters more than raw node size in most workloads.

Cache layouts also separate the two. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F uses a per-core cache structure: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core 5 320 uses a different arrangement: 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD processor has substantially more L3 cache, a factor that shows up in multi-threaded and data-heavy workloads.

Memory support is another clear split. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F supports DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth and includes ECC memory support. The Intel Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. The AMD part also offers PCIe Gen 5 with 24 CPU lanes, while the Intel part offers PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the AMD processor has no integrated GPU, while the Intel processor includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison covers 17 benchmark entries, with the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F winning 15 and the Intel Core 5 320 winning 2. The AMD processor dominates every multi-threaded workload by substantial margins.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F scores 21765 against 6197 for the Intel Core 5 320, a delta of 251.2%. This is the largest percentage difference in the entire comparison. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 2193 versus 1054, a 108.1% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core narrows the gap but still favors AMD heavily: 9141 versus 5462, a 67.4% lead. The single-core Cinebench results are closer but still favor AMD. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD part scores 3072 versus 1926, a 59.5% margin. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1290 versus 771, a 67.3% gap, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 309 versus 276, a 12% margin.

PassMark tests reinforce the multi-threaded trend. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F scores 289999 in data compression versus 148779, a 94.9% lead. Integer math shows 74745 versus 32323, a 131.2% advantage. Random string sorting delivers 35096 versus 18038, a 94.6% gap. Extended instructions show 21747 versus 13262, a 64% lead. Prime number finding shows 191 versus 110, a 73.6% margin. Data encryption shows 16712 versus 10984, a 52.1% advantage. The multithread test shows 25645 versus 15450, a 66% lead, and the physics test shows 1660 versus 1221, a 36% margin.

The floating point math test is the closest multi-threaded result: the AMD part scores 45799 versus 42440, a 7.9% lead. This indicates that both processors have competitive floating-point execution units, but the AMD processor still edges ahead.

The Intel Core 5 320 claims both single-thread PassMark wins. It scores 4045 in PassMark single_thread and singlethread (the database lists both entries with identical scores), against 3689 for the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, a delta of 8.8%. This is the only area where the Intel processor demonstrates a clear advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category tracked in the database.

• Threads: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has 12 threads; Intel Core 5 320 has 6 threads.
• Base clock: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F runs at 3.70 GHz; Intel Core 5 320 runs at 1.50 GHz.
• Boost clock: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F boosts to 4.70 GHz; Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz.
• TDP: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is rated at 65 W; Intel Core 5 320 is rated at 15 W.
• Socket: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F uses AMD Socket AM5; Intel Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516.
• Process node: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F uses 5 nm from TSMC; Intel Core 5 320 uses 3 nm from Intel.
• Transistors: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has 6,570 million; Intel Core 5 320 has no listed figure.
• Die size: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is 71 mm²; Intel Core 5 320 has no listed figure.
• L1 cache: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has 64 KB per core; Intel Core 5 320 has 192 KB total.
• L2 cache: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has 1 MB per core; Intel Core 5 320 has 2.5 MB total.
• L3 cache: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has 32 MB shared; Intel Core 5 320 has 6 MB shared.
• Memory support: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F supports DDR5; Intel Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.
• Memory bus: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is dual-channel; Intel Core 5 320 is single-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has 83.2 GB/s; Intel Core 5 320 has 59.7 GB/s.
• ECC memory: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F supports ECC; Intel Core 5 320 does not.
• PCIe: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has Gen 5 with 24 lanes; Intel Core 5 320 has Gen 4 with 6 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has none; Intel Core 5 320 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.
• Market segment: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is desktop; Intel Core 5 320 is mobile.
• Release date: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F launched on 2025-01-08; Intel Core 5 320 launched on 2026-04-15.
• Multiplier unlocked: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has an unlocked multiplier; Intel Core 5 320 does not.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F wins across nearly every measured workload. Its 12 threads, 32 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel memory bandwidth, and higher clock speeds combine to produce decisive advantages in multi-threaded rendering, data compression, integer math, encryption, and physics simulations. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result, a 251.2% lead, makes clear that content creation and heavily parallel tasks belong to the AMD processor. The data compression score of 289999 against 148779 indicates strong suitability for archive management and file server workloads. The 131.2% lead in integer math also suggests an edge in compilation and general productivity tasks. The AMD part also holds the edge in every single-core Cinebench test, making it the better choice for lightly threaded applications that still rely on high per-core throughput.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins only in the PassMark single-thread tests, scoring 4045 against 3689, an 8.8% margin. This indicates that for a narrow set of workloads that depend heavily on single-threaded PassMark-style execution, the Intel processor holds an advantage. The Intel part also consumes far less power at 15 W TDP versus 65 W, and it includes integrated graphics, which the AMD part lacks. The mobile form factor with a BGA 1516 socket means it is designed for laptops where power efficiency and integrated display output are priorities. The 3 nm process node and LPDDR5X memory support further point to a low-power mobile design. For users who need a processor in a thin-and-light notebook with basic graphics output and long battery life, the Intel Core 5 320 has structural advantages that the benchmark averages do not capture.

The overall benchmark distribution is lopsided: the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests and holds an 83rd percentile ranking versus the 72nd percentile for the Intel part. The nearest rivals for each processor confirm the positioning. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F trades nearly evenly with the Intel Core i5-14600T (0.1% ahead), Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (0.2% ahead), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (0.2% behind), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (0.3% ahead). The Intel Core 5 320 trades evenly with the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (0.2% ahead), Intel Core 5 120U (0.7% ahead), Intel Core i5-1334U (0.7% behind), and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (0.7% ahead). This places the AMD processor in the performance class of recent mid-range desktop and high-end mobile parts, while the Intel processor sits closer to older desktop chips and current low-power mobile parts.