AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and Intel Core 5 320 are both mobile processors, but the recorded data shows a stark performance separation. The AMD part, with its 16 cores and 32 threads, is positioned as a high-end compute platform, while the Intel Core 5 320, with 6 cores and 6 threads, targets a more efficient, lower-power segment. The benchmark results indicate a dominant performance advantage for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 across every single recorded test, with no wins registered for the Intel Core 5 320.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The performance gulf between the two processors is substantial, with the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 winning all 15 head-to-head comparisons. The most significant disparity appears in multi-threaded workloads, where the AMD processor’s core and thread advantage is most pronounced. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 35314 against the Intel Core 5 320’s 6197, a delta of 469.9%. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the AMD processor scores 5463 versus 1054, a 418.3% advantage. The PassMark integer math test shows the largest delta of all, with the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scoring 200665 against 32323, a 520.8% difference.

Even in single-threaded tests, where the playing field is more level, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 still holds a lead, though it is much narrower. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD processor scores 2044 against 1926, a 6.1% delta. The PassMark single-thread test shows a similar margin, with scores of 4147 and 4045 respectively, a 2.5% delta. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 14.5% advantage for the AMD chip, with scores of 316 and 276.

The remaining benchmark categories all follow the same trend. In data compression, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 690650 versus 148779, a 364.2% delta. Data encryption shows a 222.8% advantage for AMD, with scores of 35455 and 10984. Extended instructions tests show a 324.9% delta, with scores of 56346 and 13262. Floating point math shows a 203.2% delta, with scores of 128682 and 42440. The multi-thread PassMark score is 54934 for AMD versus 15450 for Intel, a 255.6% delta. Physics tests show a 185.1% delta, with scores of 3481 and 1221. Random string sorting shows a 322.3% delta, with scores of 76177 and 18038. Even in the prime number finding test, the AMD processor leads with 303 against 110, a 175.5% delta.

Architecture Differences

The architectural foundations of these two processors are fundamentally different. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is built on the Zen 5 architecture, using the Strix Halo codename, and is fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process. It features 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core 5 320, in contrast, uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is manufactured by Intel on a 3 nm process. It has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The lack of Hyper-Threading on the Intel part means it handles only 6 threads simultaneously, which is a major factor in its lower multi-threaded scores.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, an L2 cache of 1 MB per core, and a large 64 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 320 has a total L1 cache of 192 KB, an L2 cache of 2.5 MB, and a much smaller 6 MB shared L3 cache. This larger cache pool on the AMD processor provides a substantial advantage in workloads that benefit from data locality.

The memory subsystems are also starkly different. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but over a single-channel bus, providing only 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. This difference in memory bandwidth is critical for integrated graphics performance and memory-intensive computing tasks. The AMD processor also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not.

The integrated graphics solutions are not comparable in capability. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 includes the Radeon 8060S, while the Intel Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The AMD solution is designed for much higher graphical throughput, though the data does not include specific graphics benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 leads in all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2044 against the Intel Core 5 320’s 1926, a 6.1% advantage. The PassMark single-thread test shows a 2.5% delta, with scores of 4147 and 4045.

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

A: The gap is enormous. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 35314 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 469.9% higher than the Intel Core 5 320’s score of 6197. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the delta is 418.3%, with scores of 5463 and 1054.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has a 64 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 320 has a 6 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 320 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 320 support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Core 5 320 does not support ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 does support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key specification differences between the two processors.

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 | Intel Core 5 320 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 16 | 6 |

| Threads | 32 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | N/A |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Wildcat Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Part Number | 100-000001099 | SAE3H |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its strengths are most pronounced in multi-threaded and compute-intensive tasks. The data shows it delivers a 520.8% advantage in integer math, a 469.9% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and a 364.2% advantage in data compression. These results indicate that the AMD processor is suited for heavy parallel workloads such as video rendering, scientific simulation, and complex data processing. Its 32 threads and 64 MB L3 cache provide the necessary resources for high throughput. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth also supports these demanding tasks.

The Intel Core 5 320 shows no benchmark wins, but its profile suggests a different role. With a 15 W TDP, it is designed for efficiency and portability. Its single-thread performance is close to the AMD processor, with only a 2.5% delta in PassMark single-thread and a 6.1% delta in Cinebench R23 single-core. This indicates that for light, single-threaded tasks such as basic office applications or web browsing, the Intel part offers a competitive experience while consuming significantly less power. The Intel processor’s smaller physical footprint and lower power draw make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life is prioritized over raw performance.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the superior processor in raw performance. It wins all 15 head-to-head comparisons, with deltas exceeding 100% in most multi-threaded tests and exceeding 500% in integer math. This processor is designed for users who need maximum compute power in a mobile form factor. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, and large cache make it a viable option for professional content creation, software development, and other demanding applications.

The Intel Core 5 320, while not competitive in performance, presents a profile for a different use case. Its 15 W TDP and close single-thread scores make it a candidate for energy-efficient systems where battery life and low heat output are more critical than multi-core throughput. The data shows it is not a performance part, but rather an efficient one. The choice between the two depends entirely on whether the user prioritizes maximum compute capability or maximum energy efficiency. The recorded data provides no performance scenario where the Intel Core 5 320 is the better choice, but its power characteristics are its defining feature.