AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall advantage for the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164, which wins 7 of the 11 recorded comparisons. The largest margin comes in integer math, where the AMD part scores 87,940 against Intel's 32,323, a 172.1% advantage. This is the single biggest gap in the entire dataset and indicates a substantial difference in raw arithmetic throughput. Data compression also shows a massive split: AMD delivers 327,891 versus 148,779, a 120.4% lead. These two workloads dominate the performance picture, and the AMD chip's 8 cores with 16 threads clearly drive the multi-threaded results.

The Intel Core 5 320 does win four comparisons, but the margins are narrow. In single-thread performance, Intel scores 4,045 against AMD's 4,029, a lead of only 0.4%. The physics test shows Intel at 1,221 versus AMD's 1,210, a 0.9% difference. Prime number finding is the one Intel victory with a meaningful margin: Intel scores 110 against AMD's 71, which is a 35.5% advantage for Intel. This suggests that while the Intel chip has fewer threads, its per-core efficiency in certain integer-heavy workloads is superior, possibly due to the more advanced 3 nm process node.

Beyond the largest wins, the AMD processor also leads in extended instructions by 82.4% (24,193 versus 13,262), random string sorting by 92.9% (34,801 versus 18,038), and multithread by 67.6% (25,889 versus 15,450). Floating-point math shows a 31.5% AMD advantage (55,799 versus 42,440), and encryption is 46.2% ahead (16,055 versus 10,984). The average benchmark score reinforces the gap: AMD averages 52,901 across all tests, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while Intel averages 18,023, putting it in the 72nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing approaches. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process from Intel's own foundry. Despite the smaller node on the Intel side, the AMD chip packs more cores: 8 cores and 16 threads compared to Intel's 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel part has no hyperthreading equivalent, so its thread count equals its core count, which explains the multithread deficit.

Cache configurations differ significantly. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of L3. Intel lists 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD cache layout is per-core, which scales with the 8-core design, while Intel's L3 is explicitly shared. The die size for AMD is 233 mm², while Intel's die size is not recorded in the database.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. AMD supports dual-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. Intel also supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but is limited to a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, and it lacks ECC support. This memory bandwidth gap of roughly 30 GB/s directly affects workloads that stream data, such as compression and sorting. PCI Express lanes also differ: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while Intel provides Gen 4 with only 6 lanes.

Clock speeds favor AMD in boost frequency: 5.00 GHz versus Intel's 4.60 GHz. The base clock is also higher on AMD at 2.00 GHz versus 1.50 GHz. The thermal design power reflects this: AMD is rated at 28 W, Intel at 15 W. Both processors are unlocked multipliers disabled, and both target the mobile market segment.

The codenames indicate different design generations: AMD uses "Gorgon Point" with a Zen 5 / Zen 5c architecture, while Intel uses "Wildcat Lake" for its Core 5 series. Integrated graphics also differ: AMD pairs with Radeon 880M, Intel with Xe3 Graphics featuring 2 Xe cores. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $340; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The release dates show Intel launching on April 15, 2026, and AMD on March 8, 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 is the clear winner for multi-threaded and data-intensive workloads. Its integer math score of 87,940 and data compression score of 327,891 indicate strong performance for database operations, file compression, and any task that can parallelize across 16 threads. The floating-point advantage of 31.5% also positions it well for scientific computing and financial modeling. The dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth is a direct contributor to the compression and sorting wins, as those workloads depend on moving data quickly.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in single-thread responsiveness, albeit by a hair. Its 4,045 single-thread score versus 4,029 is a 0.4% edge. The physics test shows a similar narrow win at 1,221 versus 1,210. The prime number finding score of 110 versus 71 is the most substantial Intel win, indicating that for certain integer-only loops that do not benefit from many threads, the Intel chip's 3 nm process and higher per-core efficiency deliver a real advantage. The Intel part also uses less power at 15 W versus 28 W, which matters for thermally constrained mobile designs.

For users prioritizing sustained throughput across many cores, the AMD part is the only choice from this data. For users running lightly threaded applications where power draw is critical, the Intel part has a measurable edge. The average benchmark scores summarize this: AMD's 52,901 versus Intel's 18,023 means the AMD chip is roughly three times faster overall, though the Intel chip's wins in specific single-threaded tests show it is not without merit.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164. It scores 25,889 in the multithread test, which is 67.6% higher than Intel's 15,450. The AMD chip also has 16 threads versus Intel's 6 threads.

Q: Is the Intel Core 5 320 faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes. It wins in find prime numbers (110 versus 71), physics (1,221 versus 1,210), and single-thread tests (4,045 versus 4,029, a 0.4% lead). It also wins the second single-thread test by the same margin.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: AMD supports dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel is single-channel with 59.7 GB/s. This difference likely explains AMD's large wins in data compression and random string sorting.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: AMD has 8 cores and 16 threads. Intel has 6 cores and 6 threads. Intel does not use simultaneous multithreading, so its thread count equals its core count.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. AMD supports ECC memory, while Intel does not. This makes the AMD part more suitable for error-sensitive workloads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: AMD has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while Intel has 4.60 GHz. AMD also has a higher base clock at 2.00 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

The Verdict

The data overwhelmingly favors the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 for general-purpose and multi-threaded computing. Its average benchmark score of 52,901 sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, and it outperforms the Intel Core 5 320 by 120.4% in data compression and 172.1% in integer math. The 8-core, 16-thread design combined with dual-channel memory at 89.6 GB/s gives it a structural advantage that no single-threaded edge can overcome. For workloads like encryption, floating-point math, and random string sorting, the AMD part is between 31.5% and 92.9% faster.

The Intel Core 5 320 is the better choice only for specific scenarios: tasks that are strictly single-threaded and benefit from its 4,045 single-thread score, or workloads where the 15 W power envelope is a hard constraint. Its prime number finding score of 110 versus 71 is the only substantial win, and its physics score of 1,221 narrowly beats AMD's 1,210. However, the Intel chip's 6-thread limit and single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s cap its potential in anything parallel.

The database's nearest rivals for each chip put them in different leagues. AMD's closest competitors include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (0.7% below) and AMD EPYC 7313P (0.6% below), indicating server-class performance. Intel's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (0.2% above) and Intel Core i5-1334U (0.7% above), which are older or lower-tier parts. This confirms that the AMD chip competes at a higher performance tier despite both being mobile processors.

For buyers who need maximum throughput per watt in a mobile form factor, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 delivers that with 28 W and 5.00 GHz boost. For buyers who must minimize power draw to 15 W and accept lower multi-thread performance, the Intel Core 5 320 is the data-backed option. The verdict from the benchmarks is unambiguous: AMD wins the majority of tests and wins them by large margins.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 | Intel Core 5 320 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 16 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

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

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

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

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

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 880M | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Codename | Gorgon Point | Wildcat Lake |

| Generation | Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) |

| Release Date | March 8, 2026 | April 15, 2026 |