AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and Intel Core 5 320 are both six-core mobile processors, but they target different priorities. The AMD part wins seven of the eleven head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel part takes four. The recorded data shows a clear split: the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 dominates throughput-oriented workloads, while the Intel Core 5 320 counters with superior single-thread performance and better efficiency in specific physics and prime-number tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 is the choice for multi-threaded and data-heavy workloads. Its PassMark multithread score of 21054 beats the Intel Core 5 320's 15450, a 36.3% advantage. The gap widens dramatically in integer math, where AMD scores 65991 against Intel's 32323, a 104.2% lead. Data compression also favors AMD heavily: 256420 versus 148779, a 72.3% difference. Random string sorting shows a 51.1% edge for AMD, and extended instructions favor AMD by 39.2%. These results indicate that the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 delivers roughly double the integer throughput of the Intel part, making it the stronger option for compilation, scientific computing, and any workload that scales with core count and thread count.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins where single-thread speed and specific algorithmic efficiency matter. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4045 surpasses AMD's 3785 by 6.4%. The prime number test shows the largest Intel win: 110 versus 77, a 30% advantage. Physics simulation also goes to Intel, 1221 versus 1119, an 8.4% lead. These wins suggest that Intel's architecture handles branch-heavy, latency-sensitive code more effectively, even though it has fewer threads.

The overall database percentile ranks reflect this split. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 sits at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score reinforces the gap: 41208 for AMD versus 18023 for Intel. Intel's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core 5 120U, both within 0.7% of its average score, while AMD's closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, which matches its 41215 average score almost exactly.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440. It scores 21054 in PassMark multithread, which is 36.3% higher than the Intel Core 5 320's 15450.

Q: Is the Intel Core 5 320 faster in single-threaded tasks?

A: Yes. The Intel part scores 4045 in PassMark single-thread versus 3785 for AMD, a 6.4% advantage.

Q: How do the two chips compare in data compression?

A: AMD wins decisively with a score of 256420 against Intel's 148779, a 72.3% difference.

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

A: It wins four: PassMark single-thread (4045), PassMark physics (1221), PassMark find prime numbers (110), and the duplicate single-thread test. AMD wins the other seven.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, with 89.6 GB/s compared to Intel's 59.7 GB/s. AMD also uses a dual-channel memory bus while Intel uses a single-channel bus.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Core 5 320?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 has no listed launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win belongs to AMD in integer math. The Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 scores 65991, more than double the Intel Core 5 320's 32323. That 104.2% delta is the most lopsided result in the comparison and reflects the AMD part's 12 threads versus Intel's 6 threads. Data compression shows the second-largest gap: AMD at 256420 versus Intel at 148779, a 72.3% advantage. Random string sorting follows at 51.1% in AMD's favor, with scores of 27252 and 18038. Extended instructions give AMD a 39.2% lead, 18456 versus 13262. Multithread performance adds a 36.3% edge, 21054 versus 15450. Data encryption is closer but still favors AMD, 12418 versus 10984, a 13.1% difference. Floating-point math is nearly even: AMD scores 42934 against Intel's 42440, a slim 1.2% lead.

Intel's wins are smaller in aggregate but meaningful in specific contexts. The prime number test shows Intel at 110 versus AMD's 77, a 30% margin. Physics simulation favors Intel by 8.4%, 1221 versus 1119. Single-thread performance gives Intel a 6.4% edge, 4045 versus 3785. The duplicate single-thread test confirms the same result. These four wins indicate that Intel's architecture is more efficient in certain serial workloads, but the magnitude of Intel's victories is generally smaller than AMD's largest leads.

The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 41208 for AMD versus 18023 for Intel. This places AMD among desktop-class competitors like the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, which scores 41376, while Intel aligns with older parts like the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17994. The data shows that AMD's processor competes at a much higher performance tier overall.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. AMD's base clock is 2.00 GHz with a boost of 4.80 GHz; Intel runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. Thermal design power differs significantly: AMD is rated at 28 watts, Intel at 15 watts. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while Intel uses Intel BGA 1516. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Memory configuration favors AMD. The Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 320 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. AMD supports ECC memory; Intel does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), Intel provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 is built on Zen 5 architecture with the codename Gorgon Point, part of the Ryzen AI PRO 400 generation. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC and has a die size of 195 mm². Cache is organized as 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB L3. Integrated graphics come from the Radeon 840M.

The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename from the Core 5 generation, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. Its cache layout differs: 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Intel integrates Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Intel process node is smaller at 3 nm versus AMD's 4 nm, though the AMD part has a larger cache pool at the L3 level. The Intel part has no listed architecture name in the database, while AMD explicitly lists Zen 5. Both are active production mobile parts, with AMD releasing on 2026-01-04 and Intel on 2026-04-15.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a straightforward choice based on workload. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 is the stronger processor for multithreaded and data-intensive tasks. It wins seven of eleven benchmarks, including the two largest margins in the comparison. Its 12 threads, dual-channel memory, and 16 PCIe lanes make it the better fit for portable workstations and productivity machines where compilation, compression, and parallel computation matter. The 87th percentile ranking and average score of 41208 place it in a higher performance class than the Intel part.

The Intel Core 5 320 suits different priorities. Its 15-watt TDP, single-thread lead, and wins in physics and prime-number tests make it appealing for lightweight, serial workloads and power-sensitive designs. The 72nd percentile ranking and average score of 18023 indicate a more modest overall position. Its 6 threads and single-channel memory limit its throughput ceiling, but the 6.4% single-thread advantage and 30% prime-number margin show that Intel's architecture remains competitive where latency and branch prediction dominate.

For users who need maximum compute throughput in a mobile package, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 is the clear pick. For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness and lower power draw, the Intel Core 5 320 offers specific advantages. The benchmark data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-dependent decision.