AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two mobile processors. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 wins 8 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 320 takes 7, but the magnitude of those wins is heavily skewed. The AMD chip dominates multi-threaded workloads with decisive margins, while the Intel part counters with consistent, albeit smaller, single-thread victories.

The most dramatic separation appears in Cinebench multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 scores 12532 against the Intel Core 5 320's 6197, a 102.2% advantage. That is more than double the Intel score. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test tells a similar story: AMD's 1915 points versus Intel's 1054 points, a lead of 81.7%. These are not marginal differences; they indicate a fundamental throughput gap in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Integer math performance shows another striking disparity. The AMD part scores 63078 in PassMark integer math, compared to Intel's 32323, a 95.1% advantage. Data compression also heavily favors AMD, with scores of 229796 versus 148779, a 54.5% lead. Random string sorting follows the same pattern: AMD at 24970 against Intel's 18038, a 38.4% advantage. The AMD processor also leads in extended instructions (16440 vs 13262, a 24% gap), data encryption (11470 vs 10984, a 4.4% edge), and PassMark multithread (19506 vs 15450, a 26.3% margin).

The Intel Core 5 320 wins the single-thread battles. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 1926 versus AMD's 1915.5, a slim 0.5% edge. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a larger gap: Intel's 276 against AMD's 242.6, a 12.1% advantage. PassMark single-thread confirms the trend with Intel at 4045 versus AMD's 3683, an 8.9% lead. The Intel chip also wins PassMark physics (1221 vs 1095, a 10.3% margin), floating-point math (42440 vs 39967, a 5.8% edge), and prime number finding (110 vs 72, a 34.5% advantage).

The win count is nearly even, but the score distributions tell a more nuanced story. AMD's losses in single-threaded tests are mostly modest, with the exception of prime numbers and R15 single-core. Intel's losses in multi-threaded tests are often catastrophic, particularly in Cinebench R23 and integer math. The data suggests that the AMD processor is the stronger all-around performer for anything that uses multiple cores, while the Intel chip holds a narrower but real advantage in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 is the clear choice for multi-threaded productivity. The 102.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 95.1% advantage in integer math point to a processor that scales well with parallel workloads. Content creation tasks such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and batch photo editing would benefit from this throughput. The data compression score, 54.5% ahead, suggests fast archiving and file management operations. The 38.4% lead in random string sorting indicates efficient handling of data organization tasks, which often appear in database and log processing scenarios.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins where single-core responsiveness matters most. The 12.1% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and the 8.9% advantage in PassMark single-thread show that the Intel architecture extracts more performance from a single thread. This translates to snappier application launches, faster spreadsheet recalculation, and better performance in older software that does not use multiple cores effectively. The 34.5% lead in prime number finding suggests strong performance in mathematical workloads that are difficult to parallelize. The floating-point math win, 5.8% ahead, gives Intel an edge in certain scientific and engineering calculations that rely on scalar floating-point execution.

PassMark physics favors Intel by 10.3%, which can indicate better performance in physics simulation steps within games or engineering software that rely on single-threaded physics calculations. However, the AMD processor's massive multi-threaded advantages mean that overall system throughput in mixed workloads will generally favor AMD. The database shows a processor with a 78th percentile ranking among all CPUs for the AMD part, versus the 72nd percentile for the Intel part, confirming that the AMD chip holds a higher overall performance standing.

Architecture Differences

The two processors take fundamentally different approaches to core design. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 195 mm². It features 6 cores and 12 threads, meaning each core can handle two threads simultaneously. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture on a 3 nm Intel process, also with 6 cores, but only 6 threads, indicating no simultaneous multithreading. This single-thread-per-core design partially explains why Intel wins single-thread benchmarks: each core has dedicated execution resources without the overhead of thread sharing.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD chip has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD approach provides more L1 and L2 cache per core, which can reduce memory latency in per-core workloads. The Intel chip has a smaller total cache footprint, which may contribute to its lower multi-threaded throughput.

Memory architecture shows a major divergence. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 320 uses single-channel memory, capped at 59.7 GB/s. This 29.9 GB/s difference in theoretical memory bandwidth likely amplifies the multi-threaded performance gap, as parallel workloads frequently saturate memory bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory types, but the dual-channel configuration gives AMD a structural advantage.

PCIe lane counts also differ. The AMD processor provides 16 Gen 4 lanes, while the Intel processor offers only 6 Gen 4 lanes. This affects how many high-bandwidth peripherals can be connected directly to the CPU, such as NVMe storage or discrete GPUs. The integrated graphics differ as well: AMD uses the Radeon 840M, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The AMD chip also has a higher base clock at 2.00 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and a higher boost clock at 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz, though the Intel part still achieves higher single-thread scores.

Power envelopes are distinct. The AMD processor has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel processor has a TDP of 15 watts. The higher power budget for AMD aligns with its larger die and dual-channel memory controller. The Intel chip's lower power draw suggests it may fit into thinner, fanless designs, but the performance data shows this comes at a significant multi-threaded cost.

The Verdict

The data positions the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 as the superior multi-threaded processor. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12532 more than doubles the Intel Core 5 320's 6197. The 95.1% lead in integer math and 54.5% lead in data compression indicate that any workload leveraging multiple cores will see substantial benefits. The dual-channel memory bus at 89.6 GB/s provides the bandwidth necessary to feed six cores with 12 threads, and the 28-watt TDP supplies the headroom for sustained multi-core operation.

The Intel Core 5 320 is the better choice for single-thread-centric tasks. Its 12.1% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and 8.9% lead in PassMark single-thread show a real advantage in lightly threaded scenarios. The lower 15-watt TDP and single-channel memory configuration suggest a focus on efficiency over throughput. The 3 nm process node gives Intel a manufacturing advantage, but the Wildcat Lake architecture's lack of multithreading limits its parallel performance.

Users who run rendering, compilation, or data processing workloads should choose the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340. The benchmark data shows overwhelming advantages in every multi-threaded test. Users who prioritize single-thread responsiveness in a low-power envelope may find the Intel Core 5 320 adequate, but they should accept the significant multi-threaded trade-offs. The overall percentile ranking favors AMD: 78th versus 72nd among all CPUs, and the average benchmark score of 25981 for AMD versus 18023 for Intel confirms a higher general performance level.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 scores 1926, slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340's 1915.5, a marginal 0.5% difference.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 scores 12532, which is 102.2% higher than the Intel Core 5 320's 6197.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but the AMD chip uses dual-channel at 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel chip uses single-channel at 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What is the thread count difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 has 12 threads across 6 cores, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 threads across 6 cores.

Q: Which processor has a higher PassMark single-thread score?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 scores 4045, which is 8.9% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340's 3683.

Q: How do the power envelopes compare?

A: The AMD processor has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel processor has a TDP of 15 watts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 | Intel Core 5 320 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 6 |

| Threads | 12 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Wildcat Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Die Size | 195 mm² | Not specified |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (total) |

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

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 6 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 840M | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $340 |