AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database presents a decisive performance hierarchy between these two mobile processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 320 wins only 2, both in single-threaded PassMark tests by a narrow 1.2% margin. The AMD processor delivers an average benchmark score of 43326, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Intel chip scores 18023 on average, landing in the 72nd percentile. The gap in multi-core workloads is enormous, with the AMD part leading by 358.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (28424 vs 6197). This is not a close contest; the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is the clear choice for any workload that utilizes multiple threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 offers a slight edge only in extremely narrow single-threaded integer operations. The AMD part also sits in a different performance class entirely, as its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (0.2% lower average score) and Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (0.3% higher), while the Intel Core 5 320 competes with desktop-era chips like the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core i5-1334U. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the AMD processor is the only rational selection from this data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 dominates. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28424 versus 6197 for the Intel Core 5 320, a 358.7% advantage. The gap persists across older Cinebench versions: R20 multi-core shows 11938 vs 5462 (118.6% ahead), and R15 multi-core shows 2865 vs 1054 (171.8% ahead).

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

A: Yes, it wins two tests: PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread, both scoring 4045 versus 3995 for the AMD part. That is a 1.2% margin. These are the only two tests where the Intel chip leads.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has an average benchmark score of 43326, while the Intel Core 5 320 averages 18023. The AMD chip ranks in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, and the Intel chip ranks in the 72nd percentile.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The AMD processor supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel processor supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part provides more than four times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD chip also has a higher base clock (3.60 GHz vs 1.50 GHz) and boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 4.60 GHz).

Q: How does the PassMark multi-thread score compare?

A: The AMD processor scores 32075 in PassMark multi-thread, versus 15450 for the Intel chip, a 107.6% advantage. The AMD part also leads in PassMark integer math by 225% (105056 vs 32323) and in data compression by 155% (379448 vs 148779).

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process fabricated by TSMC, under the Strix Halo codename. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process fabricated by Intel's own foundry. The AMD part is a high-core-count design with 8 cores and 16 threads, enabling simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading support. The AMD architecture includes a shared 32 MB L3 cache, with 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. The Intel architecture provides 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and a much smaller 6 MB shared L3 cache. The memory architecture also diverges sharply: AMD uses quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory, while Intel uses single-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s and no ECC support. The integrated graphics differ as well: AMD equips the Radeon 8050S, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The AMD part supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), and the Intel part supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). These architectural choices explain the benchmark outcomes: the AMD design prioritizes parallel throughput and memory bandwidth, while the Intel design targets lower power consumption (15 W TDP versus 55 W TDP) and simpler single-threaded execution.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows several direct specification differences. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 8 cores versus 6 cores for the Intel Core 5 320, and 16 threads versus 6 threads. Base clock differs significantly: 3.60 GHz for AMD, 1.50 GHz for Intel. Boost clock also favors AMD: 5.00 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. Thermal design power is 55 W for AMD and 15 W for Intel. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516. Process node: 4 nm (TSMC) for AMD, 3 nm (Intel) for Intel. Cache configuration: AMD has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3; Intel has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support: AMD uses LPDDR5X only with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC support; Intel uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, without ECC. PCIe lanes: 16 for AMD, 6 for Intel, both Gen 4. Integrated graphics: Radeon 8050S for AMD, Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for Intel. Release dates differ: AMD launched on 2025-01-05, Intel on 2026-04-15. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $340. The AMD part has no launch MSRP in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are marked as Active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals the most dramatic separation. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 28424 against 6197 for the Intel Core 5 320, a 358.7% lead. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 118.6% advantage (11938 vs 5462), and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 171.8% advantage (2865 vs 1054). The single-core Cinebench results also favor AMD, though by smaller margins: R23 single-core is 4012 vs 1926 (108.3% ahead), R20 single-core is 1685 vs 771 (118.5% ahead), and R15 single-core is 404 vs 276 (46.4% ahead). The PassMark suite paints a similar picture for most tests. PassMark integer math shows a 225% advantage for AMD (105056 vs 32323). Data compression is 155% ahead (379448 vs 148779). Extended instructions show a 137.1% lead (31442 vs 13262). Random string sorting is 126.1% ahead (40784 vs 18038). Multi-thread performance is 107.6% ahead (32075 vs 15450). Data encryption is 72.8% ahead (18978 vs 10984). Floating point math is 63.9% ahead (69580 vs 42440). Find prime numbers is 42.7% ahead (157 vs 110). Physics is 40.1% ahead (1711 vs 1221). The only two tests where Intel wins are PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread, both at 4045 versus 3995, a 1.2% margin. The Intel single-thread score of 4045 is notable because it exceeds the AMD score despite the AMD part having a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. This suggests the Intel architecture extracts more instructions per cycle in this specific workload, but the effect is minimal and does not translate to any Cinebench single-core win.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins decisively in every multi-threaded and most single-threaded scenarios. The data shows a 358.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which indicates the AMD processor is suited for heavy parallel workloads such as 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific computing, and software compilation. The 256.0 GB/s quad-channel memory bandwidth supports these workloads by feeding data to the 8 cores and 16 threads without bottlenecks. The 32 MB shared L3 cache further aids multi-threaded performance. The AMD part also wins in integer math by 225%, making it the better choice for general productivity applications, database operations, and encryption tasks (72.8% ahead in data encryption). The 55 W TDP reflects the higher power envelope that enables this performance level. The Intel Core 5 320 wins only the PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread tests by 1.2%. This is a narrow, specialized victory. The Intel chip's 15 W TDP makes it a lower-power part, and its 6 MB L3 cache and single-channel memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s limit its multi-threaded capability. The Intel part may be suitable for extremely light workloads where the 15 W TDP is a priority, but the benchmark data does not show any substantive performance advantage. The single-thread PassMark win does not extend to Cinebench single-core, where AMD leads by 108.3% in R23. The Intel processor's 3 nm process node and 1.50 GHz base clock suggest a design focused on efficiency rather than peak throughput. In practical terms, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is the dominant processor for all compute-intensive tasks, while the Intel Core 5 320 offers only a marginal single-thread integer edge that is unlikely to matter in real-world applications. The 15 wins for AMD versus 2 wins for Intel, combined with the magnitude of the deltas, leaves no ambiguity about which chip delivers superior performance.