AMD Ryzen 7 170 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

AMD Ryzen 7 170 vs Intel Core 5 320: Mobile processor comparison. The database records show two very different designs, one built around eight cores and sixteen threads on a 6 nm node, the other around six cores and six threads on a 3 nm node. The benchmark results reveal a split personality: the AMD part dominates most throughput tests while the Intel part wins on single-thread speed and two specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The PassMark suite in the database contains eleven recorded comparisons between the AMD Ryzen 7 170 and the Intel Core 5 320. The AMD chip wins seven of those tests, the Intel chip wins four. The margins, however, are not uniform, and the pattern of wins tells a clear story about what each processor prioritizes.

The largest victory for the AMD Ryzen 7 170 comes in integer math, where it scores 79,738 against the Intel Core 5 320’s 32,323. That is a 146.7% advantage, the single biggest gap in the entire comparison. Data compression also favors AMD heavily: 265,920 versus 148,779, a 78.7% lead. These are workloads that scale with core count and thread count, and the AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads against Intel’s 6 cores and 6 threads.

Encryption follows the same pattern. The Ryzen 7 170 scores 16,078, which is 46.4% ahead of the Intel Core 5 320’s 10,984. Random string sorting shows a 54.1% lead for AMD, with scores of 27,804 and 18,038. Extended instructions, a test that measures SIMD and other specialized instruction throughput, goes to AMD by 36.5%, 18,107 versus 13,262. Multithreaded performance, the aggregate PassMark multithread score, puts AMD ahead by 34.4%, at 20,760 versus 15,450. Floating point math is closer, with AMD scoring 44,979 against Intel’s 42,440, a 6% margin.

The Intel Core 5 320 takes its wins in different territory. Single-thread performance is its strongest category: 4,045 versus 3,128, a 22.7% lead. That same margin appears in the duplicate single-thread test entry in the database. Prime number finding is a dramatic Intel victory: 110 versus 49, a 55.5% edge in Intel’s favor. Physics simulation also goes to Intel, 1,221 versus 890, a 27.1% lead.

The contrast is stark. In tests that reward parallel execution, the Ryzen 7 170 leads by margins from 6% to 146.7%. In tests that reward raw single-core speed or specific algorithmic efficiency, the Core 5 320 leads by 22.7% to 55.5%. The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the AMD part holds an average score of 43,689, while the Intel part averages 18,023. That average, however, includes the AMD part’s strong multithread results and does not capture the single-thread story.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 uses the Zen 3+ architecture, specifically the Rembrandt-R refresh, on a 6 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on Intel’s own 3 nm process. The node difference matters for power and density, but the core configurations matter more for performance.

AMD configures the Ryzen 7 170 with 8 cores and 16 threads. Intel gives the Core 5 320 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading or equivalent simultaneous multithreading. That alone explains most of the multithread benchmark gaps. The AMD part’s cache layout is per-core: 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 16 MB L3. The Intel part lists 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD L3 cache is more than double the Intel L3, and the AMD L2 totals 4 MB across all cores against Intel’s 2.5 MB.

Clock speeds also differ. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.75 GHz. The Intel Core 5 320 has a much lower base clock of 1.50 GHz but a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The low Intel base clock suggests a power-conscious design, and the TDP figures confirm that: the AMD part is rated at 35 watts, the Intel part at 15 watts. The Intel chip consumes less than half the power budget of the AMD chip.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 supports DDR5 only, through a dual-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 320 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but through a single-channel bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The AMD memory path offers 28.6% more bandwidth on paper. ECC memory is supported on the AMD part, not on the Intel part.

PCIe connectivity differs: the AMD Ryzen 7 170 provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, the Intel Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with AMD using the Radeon 680M and Intel using Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Both processors are mobile parts, both are actively in production, and both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 320. The database records a PassMark single-thread score of 4,045 for Intel versus 3,128 for AMD, a 22.7% advantage for Intel.

Q: Why does the AMD processor win so many multithread tests?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 170 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part also has a larger shared L3 cache (16 MB versus 6 MB) and a dual-channel memory bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin in either direction?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 170 leads by 146.7% in integer math, scoring 79,738 versus 32,323. The Intel Core 5 320 leads by 55.5% in prime number finding, scoring 110 versus 49.

Q: How do the power ratings compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 170 has a TDP of 35 watts. The Intel Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15 watts, less than half of the AMD part’s power budget.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 supports DDR5 through a dual-channel interface. The Intel Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X through a single-channel interface.

Q: Which processor sits higher in the overall performance percentile?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 170 ranks in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core 5 320 ranks in the 72nd percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification.

Core and thread counts: AMD has 8 cores and 16 threads, Intel has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Clock speeds: AMD base clock is 3.20 GHz, boost is 4.75 GHz. Intel base clock is 1.50 GHz, boost is 4.60 GHz.

TDP: AMD is 35 watts, Intel is 15 watts.

Socket: AMD uses AMD Socket FP7, Intel uses Intel BGA 1516.

Process node: AMD uses 6 nm from TSMC, Intel uses 3 nm from Intel’s own foundry.

Cache: AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Intel has 192 KB L1 total, 2.5 MB L2 total, and 6 MB shared L3.

Memory support: AMD supports DDR5 only, dual-channel, 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, single-channel, 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

ECC memory: AMD supports it, Intel does not.

PCIe: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, Intel provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics: AMD uses Radeon 680M, Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Die size: AMD lists 210 mm², Intel does not list a die size.

Release date: AMD released on September 30, 2025, Intel on April 15, 2026.

Part number: AMD lists 100-000000989, Intel lists SAE3H.

The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $340.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct performance profiles. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 is the stronger multi-threaded processor. It wins integer math, data compression, encryption, random string sorting, extended instructions, floating point math, and the aggregate multithread score. Its 8-core, 16-thread configuration with a 16 MB L3 cache and dual-channel memory gives it decisive advantages in parallel workloads. The 88th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 43,689 place it among more capable mobile processors.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins the single-thread tests, prime number finding, and physics simulation. Its 3 nm process and 15 watt TDP indicate a power-efficient design that prioritizes per-core speed over parallel throughput. The 4,045 single-thread score is 22.7% ahead of AMD, and the 55.5% lead in prime number finding suggests strong integer algorithmic efficiency. The 72nd percentile ranking and average score of 18,023 place it lower in the overall database, but the low power draw and compact design serve a different purpose.

Neither processor is universally superior. The AMD part leads in the majority of tests, but the Intel part wins in categories that matter for responsiveness, light-threaded applications, and power-constrained environments. The record shows a 7-4 win split in favor of AMD across the head-to-head tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 170 wins in workloads that use many threads and large data sets. Integer math shows the largest gap at 146.7%, indicating heavy parallel integer processing. Data compression, with a 78.7% lead, benefits from the 16 threads and the larger 16 MB L3 cache. Encryption workloads, 46.4% ahead, also scale with thread count. Random string sorting, 54.1% ahead, rewards both parallel execution and memory bandwidth. Extended instructions, 36.5% ahead, and the multithread score, 34.4% ahead, both confirm the AMD part’s strength in sustained multi-core operations. Floating point math, while close at 6%, still goes to AMD. Users running video encoding, 3D rendering, compilation, or data processing tasks would see the AMD side of the ledger.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in single-thread-bound scenarios. The 22.7% single-thread advantage means faster response in lightly threaded applications like web browsing, document editing, and many legacy applications. Prime number finding, with a 55.5% lead, suggests particular efficiency in integer loops and branch-heavy code. Physics simulation, 27.1% ahead, benefits from that same single-thread strength in game physics or scientific calculations that resist parallelization. The 15 watt TDP also makes the Intel part the lower-power option, which matters for fanless or ultra-thin designs. The board’s memory bandwidth is lower at 59.7 GB/s, but the single-channel design saves power and space.

The database does not record any benchmark where both processors tie. Every test has a clear winner. The choice between them comes down to whether the workload scales across cores or depends on per-core speed and power efficiency.