AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data between the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and the Intel Core 5 320 shows a decisive overall advantage for the AMD part. Across the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Ryzen 5 8400F wins 14, while the Intel Core 5 320 wins only 3. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

The largest single victory for the AMD processor comes in Cinebench R23 multicore, where it scores 20,851 against Intel's 6,197, a delta of 236.5%. That is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gap in sustained multi-threaded throughput. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R20 multicore, where AMD leads 8,757 to 5,462, a 60.3% advantage, and in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the scores are 2,101 versus 1,054, a 99.3% delta. In every multicore rendering test in the database, the Ryzen 5 8400F at least doubles the Intel part's output.

Integer math shows another massive gap. The AMD chip scores 74,021 in PassMark integer math, while the Intel chip scores 32,323, a 129% lead. Data compression follows the same trend: 288,158 versus 148,779, a 93.7% delta. Random string sorting goes 34,604 to 18,038, a 91.8% advantage for AMD. Extended instruction workloads favor AMD by 67.2%, with scores of 22,175 versus 13,262.

The Intel Core 5 320 does secure wins in three specific tests. PassMark single-thread and single-thread duplicate tests show Intel ahead 4,045 to 3,685, an 8.9% margin. The find prime numbers test also goes to Intel, 110 to 89, a 19.1% edge. These are narrow but real victories, indicating the Intel architecture has a per-core strength in certain scalar workloads that the AMD part does not match.

In the remaining tests, AMD wins with smaller margins. Floating point math goes to AMD 46,217 to 42,440, an 8.9% delta. Physics simulation favors AMD 1,332 to 1,221, a 9.1% edge. Data encryption shows AMD ahead 16,646 to 10,984, a 51.5% margin. The overall average benchmark score reflects this distribution: AMD sits at 25,005, while Intel sits at 18,023.

The percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database places the Ryzen 5 8400F at the 77th percentile, while the Intel Core 5 320 lands at the 72nd percentile. That five-point gap in percentile ranking is consistent with the average score difference of roughly 39%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix, using a 4 nm process from TSMC. It integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process from Intel, though the database does not record transistor count or die size for this part.

Core and thread configuration differs sharply. Both have 6 physical cores, but the AMD chip supports 12 threads through simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel chip runs 6 threads with no hyperthreading. That doubling of thread count is the primary driver behind the multicore benchmark disparities. The base clock rates also diverge: AMD runs at 4.20 GHz base with a 4.70 GHz boost, while Intel runs at 1.50 GHz base with a 4.60 GHz boost. The Intel base clock is remarkably low, which explains why it relies so heavily on boost behavior.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The AMD part provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part lists 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD processor therefore has substantially more total cache at every level, which contributes to its performance in data-heavy workloads like compression and string sorting.

Memory support also differs. The AMD chip uses DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Intel chip supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only through a single-channel memory bus, with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. Single-channel memory access is a significant constraint for a processor, and it shows in the memory-sensitive benchmarks.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 4 with only 6 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part has no integrated graphics, while the Intel part includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Intel chip also has a 15 W TDP, while the AMD chip is rated at 65 W. The Intel part is a mobile segment processor on Intel BGA 1516, whereas the AMD part is a desktop processor on AMD Socket AM5. The AMD multiplier is unlocked; the Intel multiplier is locked.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 5 8400F dominates in threaded workloads across the board. Rendering, compression, encryption, integer math, and multithreaded PassMark tests all go to AMD by wide margins. The data indicates that any workload that can use more than one or two threads will favor the AMD processor, often by very large deltas. The 236.5% advantage in Cinebench R23 multicore is the clearest signal: sustained all-core rendering is not competitive on the Intel part.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in single-thread PassMark tests and in the find prime numbers test. The 8.9% single-thread lead in PassMark suggests that for lightly threaded, latency-sensitive scalar operations, the Intel core design has an edge. The find prime numbers result, a 19.1% win, points to a strength in simple, branch-heavy integer loops where the Intel chip does not need to manage extra threads or memory traffic.

The floating point math test is close, with AMD ahead by only 8.9%. Physics simulation is also close, with AMD ahead by 9.1%. These are not decisive wins for either side; they indicate parity in certain math-heavy single-threaded operations, with AMD holding a modest edge.

For users running desktop productivity, content creation, or any parallel compute task, the data points squarely at the AMD part. For users running very light, single-threaded applications where power consumption matters, the Intel part has a narrow performance claim, but its 15 W TDP and integrated graphics make it a mobile-oriented design.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has an average benchmark score of 25,005, compared to 18,023 for the Intel Core 5 320.

Q: How large is the multicore performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F scores 20,851 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Core 5 320 scores 6,197, a 236.5% difference.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 320 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 5 320 wins PassMark single-thread (4,045 versus 3,685, an 8.9% margin) and the passmark find prime numbers test (110 versus 89, a 19.1% margin).

Q: How do the thread counts differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has 12 threads from 6 cores, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 threads from 6 cores.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F supports 83.2 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus. The Intel Core 5 320 supports 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X bus.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the choice straightforward for most workloads. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F delivers dramatically higher multi-threaded performance, with a 236.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore, a 129% lead in integer math, and a 93.7% lead in data compression. Its 12 threads, dual-channel memory, larger cache hierarchy, and 65 W desktop power envelope all support sustained high throughput. The 77th percentile ranking versus 72nd for Intel confirms its overall position in the database.

The Intel Core 5 320 does not compete on raw throughput. Its wins are limited to a narrow set of single-threaded and scalar workloads: PassMark single-thread by 8.9% and find prime numbers by 19.1%. Its 6 threads, single-channel memory, and 6 MB of L3 cache constrain it in almost every parallel task. The 15 W TDP and integrated Xe3 graphics indicate that this is a mobile-focused chip, suited to battery-conscious designs rather than desktop compute.

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is the appropriate choice for desktop users who need rendering performance, data compression, encryption, or any multithreaded application. The Intel Core 5 320 is appropriate for mobile systems where the integrated graphics, low power draw, and single-thread efficiency in specific scalar tests are more important than multicore output. The benchmark record does not show any scenario where the Intel part matches the AMD part in aggregate compute.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 8400F | Intel Core 5 320 |

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

| Series | 8000 series | Not specified |

| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |

| Cores | 6 | 6 |

| Threads | 12 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Not specified |

| Codename | Phoenix | Wildcat Lake |

| Generation | Ryzen 5 (Zen 4 (Phoenix)) | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | Not specified |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-03-31 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $170 | $340 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | 100-000001591 | SAE3H |