AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i uses 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part has no hyperthreading equivalent on the Intel side, so the thread count gap is substantial.

Q: How do the two processors compare in clock speed?

A: The AMD part has a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. The Intel part has a 1.50 GHz base clock and a 4.60 GHz boost clock. The AMD processor leads in both metrics.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth rating?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i supports dual-channel memory and delivers 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 320 uses single-channel memory and delivers 59.7 GB/s. The AMD processor provides roughly 50% more bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 320 does not support ECC memory, which makes the AMD part more suitable for error-sensitive workloads.

Q: What is the manufacturing process for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 233 mm². The Intel Core 5 320 is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, though its die size is not recorded in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i sits at the 50th percentile. The Intel part also has an average benchmark score of 18023, whereas the AMD part has no recorded benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i belongs to the Gorgon Point generation and uses a hybrid Zen 5 / Zen 5c core arrangement. It combines high-performance and efficiency cores in a 10-core, 20-thread configuration. The processor is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 233 mm². The cache hierarchy is per-core: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor uses AMD Socket FP8 and integrates Radeon 880M graphics. It supports ECC memory, which is a notable feature for embedded and workstation-class usage.

The Intel Core 5 320 belongs to the Wildcat Lake generation and uses a 3 nm process at Intel. It has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The cache structure differs: 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The processor uses Intel BGA 1516 and integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. It does not support ECC memory. The Intel part has a recorded part number of SAE3H, while the AMD part's part number is listed as unknown.

The process node difference is small (4 nm versus 3 nm), but the architectural philosophy diverges sharply. AMD uses a hybrid core design with double the thread count, while Intel uses a simpler uniform-core design with fewer threads. The AMD processor also has a larger L3 cache (16 MB versus 6 MB) and a wider memory bus (dual-channel versus single-channel). The PCIe support also differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while Intel offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in overall benchmark standing based on recorded data. It holds a 72nd percentile rank among all CPUs, compared to the AMD part's 50th percentile. The Intel processor's average benchmark score is 18023, which places it slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (17994, delta 0.2%) and the Intel Core 5 120U (17898, delta 0.7%), while trailing the Intel Core i5-1334U (18154, delta -0.7%) by a narrow margin. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so its performance profile cannot be directly compared on those metrics.

The AMD processor wins on architectural specifications. It offers more cores, more threads, higher base and boost clocks, larger L3 cache, dual-channel memory, ECC support, and more PCIe lanes. For workloads that scale with thread count, cache capacity, or memory bandwidth, the AMD part's specifications suggest an advantage, though the database does not contain direct benchmark confirmation for the AMD chip.

The Intel processor wins on recorded real-world performance data. Its Cinebench scores, PassMark scores, and overall percentile ranking are all documented. The Intel part also has a lower TDP (15 watts versus 28 watts), which indicates lower power draw in mobile or embedded scenarios. The Intel part's launch MSRP is $340, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

Cores and Threads: AMD has 10 cores and 20 threads; Intel has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Base Clock: AMD at 2.00 GHz; Intel at 1.50 GHz.

Boost Clock: AMD at 5.00 GHz; Intel at 4.60 GHz.

TDP: AMD at 28 watts; Intel at 15 watts.

Socket: AMD Socket FP8 versus Intel BGA 1516.

Process Node: 4 nm (TSMC) for AMD; 3 nm (Intel) for Intel.

Die Size: 233 mm² for AMD; not recorded for Intel.

L1 Cache: 80 KB per core for AMD; 192 KB total for Intel.

L2 Cache: 1 MB per core for AMD; 2.5 MB total for Intel.

L3 Cache: 16 MB for AMD; 6 MB shared for Intel.

Memory Bus: Dual-channel for AMD; single-channel for Intel.

Memory Bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s for AMD; 59.7 GB/s for Intel.

ECC Memory: Supported on AMD; not supported on Intel.

PCIe: Gen 4 with 16 lanes for AMD; Gen 4 with 6 lanes for Intel.

Integrated Graphics: Radeon 880M for AMD; Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for Intel.

Release Date: AMD on 2026-02-28; Intel on 2026-04-15.

Part Number: Unknown for AMD; SAE3H for Intel.

Launch MSRP: Not recorded for AMD; $340 for Intel.

Multiplier Unlocked: Both are locked.

Market Segment: Both are mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results only for the Intel Core 5 320. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i has no recorded benchmark scores, so a direct numerical head-to-head comparison is not possible. However, the Intel part's results can be analyzed in absolute terms and against its nearest rivals.

In Cinebench R15, the Intel Core 5 320 scores 1054 in multicore and 276 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5462 in multicore and 771 in single-core. In Cinebench R23, it scores 6197 in multicore and 1926 in single-core. These results place the Intel part in the upper half of the database, consistent with its 72nd percentile standing.

In PassMark tests, the Intel Core 5 320 shows a wide range of strengths. It scores 148779 in data compression, 10984 in data encryption, 13262 in extended instructions, 110 in prime number finding, 42440 in floating point math, 32323 in integer math, 15450 in multithread, 1221 in physics, 18038 in random string sorting, and 4045 in single-thread tests. The single-thread score appears twice in the database (as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread), both at 4045.

The Intel part's nearest rivals provide context. The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 has an average score of 17994, which is 0.2% lower than the Intel Core 5 320's 18023. The Intel Core 5 120U scores 17898, 0.7% lower. The Intel Core i5-1334U scores 18154, which is 0.7% higher than the Core 5 320. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT scores 17891, 0.7% lower. The Core 5 320 therefore sits in a tight cluster with these four rivals, all within roughly one percentage point of each other.

Since the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i has no benchmark entries, its wins cannot be quantified. The specification sheet indicates a strong theoretical advantage in multithreaded throughput, memory bandwidth, and cache capacity. The Intel part, by contrast, has verified performance data showing it competes with established desktop and mobile processors from both AMD and Intel. The Intel part also has a lower TDP, which may favor it in thermally constrained systems.

The data shows a clear split: Intel delivers measured results and a higher percentile rank, while AMD delivers a richer specification sheet with no benchmark confirmation. For users relying on recorded performance, the Intel Core 5 320 is the only option with evidence. For users prioritizing core count, memory bandwidth, ECC support, and PCIe lane availability, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P174i presents a compelling specification profile, though its actual performance remains unverified in the database.