AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers a clear verdict: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U is the dominant processor for multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads, winning 13 of 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 320 counters with a smaller number of wins, but those wins are concentrated in specific single-threaded and specialized tasks. The AMD part posts an average benchmark score of 30254, placing it in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel part averages 18023, landing in the 72nd percentile. That is a massive overall performance gap, with the AMD processor holding a 67.9% higher average score.

For users running rendering, compilation, data compression, encryption, or integer math, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U is the only choice based on this data. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19982 versus the Intel Core 5 320's 6197 represents a 222.4% advantage, the largest margin in the entire comparison. The Intel part, however, wins PassMark single-thread (4045 vs 3732, a 7.7% lead), PassMark physics (1221 vs 1154, a 5.5% lead), and PassMark prime number finding (110 vs 78, a 29.1% lead). These wins suggest the Intel processor has a per-core efficiency edge in certain workloads, but that advantage does not translate into overall throughput.

The AMD processor also sits in much faster company. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (0.1% slower), the AMD Ryzen 7 7736U (0.4% faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS (0.4% faster), and the Intel Core i9-11980HK (0.6% faster). The Intel Core 5 320, by contrast, competes with the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (0.2% slower), Intel Core 5 120U (0.7% faster), Intel Core i5-1334U (0.7% slower), and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (0.7% faster). The data indicates the AMD part performs at a level associated with older high-end desktop chips and recent high-end mobile parts, while the Intel part aligns with much older desktop processors from the 2017 and 2018 era.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, part of the 8000 series. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, packs 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, and features 6 cores with 12 threads. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation, built on a 3 nm process node from Intel. It also has 6 cores but only 6 threads, indicating no simultaneous multithreading.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The AMD processor provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor lists 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's larger L3 cache, 16 MB versus 6 MB, is a significant architectural advantage for workloads that benefit from larger shared pools of fast memory.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and a peak bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it includes ECC memory support. The Intel Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s peak bandwidth, which is roughly one-third lower. The Intel part has no ECC support. The AMD processor also offers more PCIe connectivity, with Gen 4 and 20 lanes from the CPU, versus Gen 4 and 6 lanes for the Intel part.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD part uses the Radeon 760M, while the Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Both target the mobile market segment and are currently in active production. The AMD processor was released on 2024-04-15, while the Intel processor has a release date of 2026-04-15. The AMD part lists two part numbers (100-000001318 for FP7r2 and 100-000001378 for FP7), while the Intel part lists SAE3H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U wins every multi-core benchmark in the comparison. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 19982 versus 6197 for the Intel Core 5 320, a 222.4% advantage. In PassMark multi-thread, it scores 22795 versus 15450, a 47.5% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 320 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Intel part wins 4 of 17 head-to-head tests: PassMark find prime numbers (110 vs 78, a 29.1% lead), PassMark physics (1221 vs 1154, a 5.5% lead), and PassMark single-thread (4045 vs 3732, a 7.7% lead, recorded twice).

Q: How do clock speeds compare between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Intel Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: What are the power consumption ratings?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U has a TDP of 28 watts. The Intel Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Which processor has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U has a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s peak bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 320 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s peak bandwidth.

Q: How does the AMD processor compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U averages 30254 points, which is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 7736U, 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS, and 0.6% behind the Intel Core i9-11980HK.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows the following differences between the two processors:

• Cores: Both have 6 cores.
• Threads: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U has 12 threads; Intel Core 5 320 has 6 threads.
• Base clock: AMD 3.50 GHz; Intel 1.50 GHz.
• Boost clock: AMD 4.90 GHz; Intel 4.60 GHz.
• TDP: AMD 28 W; Intel 15 W.
• Socket: AMD Socket FP7; Intel BGA 1516.
• Architecture: Zen 4; not listed for Intel.
• Codename: Hawk Point; Wildcat Lake.
• Process node: 4 nm (TSMC); 3 nm (Intel).
• Transistors: 25,000 million; not listed.
• Die size: 178 mm²; not listed.
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core; 192 KB total.
• L2 cache: 1 MB per core; 2.5 MB total.
• L3 cache: 16 MB shared; 6 MB shared.
• Memory support: DDR5; DDR5 and LPDDR5X.
• Memory bus: Dual-channel; single-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s; 59.7 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Supported; not supported.
• PCIe: Gen 4, 20 lanes; Gen 4, 6 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 760M; Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe).
• Release date: 2024-04-15; 2026-04-15.
• Launch MSRP: Not listed for AMD; $340 for Intel.
• Percentile: 81st versus 72nd.
• Average benchmark score: 30254 versus 18023.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 19982 versus 6197, a 222.4% advantage. This is the single biggest margin in the dataset and reflects the combined effect of simultaneous multithreading, a higher boost clock, and a larger L3 cache. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 53.6% lead (8392 vs 5462), and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 91.1% lead (2014 vs 1054). The Intel part's lack of multithreading appears to be a decisive disadvantage in these rendering workloads.

In single-core Cinebench tests, the AMD processor still wins, but by narrower margins. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 284 versus 276, a 2.9% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1184 versus 771, a 53.6% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2821 versus 1926, a 46.5% lead. The R20 and R23 margins are substantial, indicating that the AMD architecture is not just stronger in multi-threaded tasks but also in sustained single-core Cinebench performance.

PassMark integer math heavily favors AMD, with 74875 versus 32323, a 131.6% lead. Data compression shows 260925 versus 148779, a 75.4% lead. Random string sorting shows 32114 versus 18038, a 78% lead. Data encryption shows 15843 versus 10984, a 44.2% lead. Extended instructions show 19130 versus 13262, a 44.2% lead. Floating point math is closer, with 45265 versus 42440, a 6.7% lead. PassMark multi-thread shows 22795 versus 15450, a 47.5% lead.

The Intel Core 5 320's wins are narrower in percentage terms except for prime number finding. PassMark find prime numbers shows 110 versus 78, a 29.1% lead for Intel. PassMark physics shows 1221 versus 1154, a 5.5% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 4045 versus 3732, a 7.7% lead, recorded twice in the dataset. These wins indicate that the Intel part has a per-thread advantage in specific integer and physics workloads, but the overall average score still favors AMD by a wide margin.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U is the clear winner for multi-threaded productivity and content creation. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19982 places it far ahead of the Intel Core 5 320's 6197, and its PassMark multi-thread score of 22795 versus 15450 confirms the trend. The 131.6% lead in integer math and the 75.4% lead in data compression make it the better option for code compilation, archive handling, and database workloads. The 44.2% lead in data encryption and extended instructions further supports its use for security-related tasks and workloads using modern instruction sets. The dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, nearly 50% higher than the Intel part's 59.7 GB/s, reinforces this position for memory-bound applications.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in a smaller set of scenarios. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4045 versus 3732 represents a 7.7% advantage, making it the better choice for lightly threaded applications where a single core is the bottleneck and the workload is not memory-sensitive. Its PassMark physics score of 1221 versus 1154, a 5.5% lead, suggests an advantage in certain physics simulation tasks. The 29.1% lead in prime number finding, 110 versus 78, indicates a strong showing in integer-heavy algorithmic workloads that scale with per-core efficiency rather than thread count. The Intel part's lower TDP of 15 watts, versus 28 watts for the AMD part, also positions it for power-constrained designs, although the recorded data does not include battery-life or thermal measurements.

Overall, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U is the higher-performing processor in nearly every category that matters for throughput, with 13 wins out of 17 tests and an average score 67.9% higher. The Intel Core 5 320's four wins are real but isolated, and they do not offset the AMD part's dominance in multi-core, memory bandwidth, and overall average score.