AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains benchmark results for only one of these two processors. The Intel Core 5 320 has a full set of measured scores across Cinebench and Passmark workloads. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 has no benchmark entries in the database, meaning its performance profile cannot be directly compared in these tests. This creates a one-sided comparison where the Intel part's scores stand alone.

For the Intel Core 5 320, the Cinebench R23 multicore score is 6197 points, while the single-core score is 1926 points. The Cinebench R20 results show 5462 points in multicore and 771 points in single-core. The older Cinebench R15 test yields 1054 points in multicore and 276 points in single-core. These results indicate a processor that scales reasonably from single-threaded to multi-threaded workloads, with the multicore advantage growing as the test becomes more demanding.

The Passmark suite provides additional detail. The multithread score is 15450, while the single-thread score is 4045. Integer math reaches 32323, floating-point math hits 42440, and extended instructions score 13262. Data compression scores 148779, data encryption scores 10984, and random string sorting scores 18038. The physics test returns 1221, and the prime number finding test returns 110.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 carries an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 320, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 18023 and sits in the 72nd percentile. This percentile gap is substantial, though it reflects the absence of data for the AMD part rather than a measured deficit. The Intel processor's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 with an average score of 17994 and a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core 5 120U at 17898 with a delta of 0.7 percent, the Intel Core i5-1334U at 18154 with a delta of -0.7 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17891 with a delta of 0.7 percent. These deltas are all within one percent, placing the Intel Core 5 320 in a tightly clustered performance band.

The lack of benchmark data for the AMD part means the head-to-head comparison is incomplete. The database shows zero wins for each processor in the head-to-head benchmark section. Any conclusion about relative performance must rely on the specification differences and architectural details, not on measured scores.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 320 has measured wins in every benchmark category where data exists, simply because it is the only part with recorded results. The Cinebench suite shows consistent scoring across all three versions, with the R23 multicore score of 6197 representing the strongest multi-threaded result. The Passmark multithread score of 15450 reinforces this, and the integer math score of 32323 suggests solid general-purpose compute capability.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490, based on its specifications, would likely target different workloads. It offers 12 cores and 24 threads, which is double the core count and four times the thread count of the Intel part's 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD processor also has a much larger L3 cache at 64 MB compared to the Intel's 6 MB shared L3. The memory bandwidth difference is pronounced: the AMD part supports quad-channel LPDDR5X with 273.1 GB/s, while the Intel part uses single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s. These specifications point toward memory-intensive and heavily threaded workloads, though no benchmark scores confirm this.

The Intel Core 5 320, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, has no hyper-threading, so it relies on raw core performance rather than thread overlap. Its boost clock of 4.60 GHz is lower than the AMD's 5.00 GHz boost. The Intel part's TDP of 15 watts is far below the AMD's 55 watts, suggesting the Intel processor is designed for efficiency in thin-and-light mobile systems, while the AMD part targets higher-performance mobile workstations.

The recorded data shows the Intel processor's percentile rank of 72, which places it above the median in the database. Its nearest rivals, all within 0.7 percent in average score, confirm that it performs in line with mid-range desktop processors from previous generations, such as the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490, with its 50th percentile rank and zero benchmark score, has no comparable positioning in the database.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has an average benchmark score of 18023. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 has an average benchmark score of 0, as no benchmark results are recorded for it.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core 5 320 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 has a TDP of 55 watts. The Intel Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile rank among all CPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 sits in the 72nd percentile. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 sits in the 50th percentile.

Q: What memory configurations do the two processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 273.1 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 320 supports single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: the AMD part runs at 3.20 GHz, the Intel part at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks are closer but still different, with AMD at 5.00 GHz and Intel at 4.60 GHz. The TDP gap is large, with AMD at 55 watts and Intel at 15 watts.

The cache hierarchy is entirely different. The AMD processor has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3. The Intel processor has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD part uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 3 nm process from Intel. The AMD die size is listed as 2x 70.6 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Intel part.

Memory support diverges sharply. The AMD processor supports only LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 273.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel processor supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the AMD part but not on the Intel part. PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD part offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics are different as well. The AMD part uses a Radeon 8050S, while the Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket FP11, Intel uses BGA 1516. Release dates differ by about a month, with the Intel part released on 2026-04-15 and the AMD part on 2026-05-19. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $340, while no launch MSRP is listed for the AMD part. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. AMD's Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 is built on the Zen 5 architecture under the Gorgon Halo codename. Intel's Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename. The AMD processor is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel processor uses a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The AMD die consists of two chiplets, each 70.6 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Intel part.

The core count difference reflects distinct design philosophies. AMD's 12 cores with simultaneous multithreading produce 24 threads, allowing heavy parallel workloads to spread across many logical processors. Intel's 6 cores with no hyper-threading produce only 6 threads, meaning each physical core handles exactly one thread. This is a core count and thread count disparity that cannot be compensated by clock speed alone, given the AMD part also has a higher boost clock.

Cache design follows different strategies. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, then pools 64 MB of L3 across the chip. Intel allocates 192 KB of L1 total and 2.5 MB of L2 total, then shares 6 MB of L3. The AMD L3 cache is more than ten times larger, which matters for workloads with large working sets that benefit from fast on-chip reuse.

Memory architecture reinforces the cache difference. AMD's quad-channel LPDDR5X interface delivers 273.1 GB/s, a figure that is over 4.5 times the Intel part's 59.7 GB/s from its single-channel interface. This bandwidth advantage supports the larger cache and higher core count, suggesting the AMD processor is designed for data-heavy workloads such as content creation, scientific computing, or large database operations. The Intel part's lower bandwidth aligns with its lower TDP and mobile positioning.

ECC memory support on the AMD part indicates a workstation or server-oriented target, while the lack of ECC on the Intel part suggests a consumer mobile focus. The PCIe lane count also differs, with AMD offering 16 Gen 4 lanes versus Intel's 6 Gen 4 lanes, which affects external device connectivity such as discrete GPUs or high-speed storage.

The integrated graphics differ in brand and capability. AMD's Radeon 8050S is a larger GPU solution, while Intel's Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores is a more modest integrated solution. The production status for both is active, and both are mobile market segments. The AMD part's higher TDP of 55 watts versus Intel's 15 watts indicates a thermal envelope suited to larger laptops or mobile workstations, whereas the Intel part fits into thinner, lower-power designs. The process node advantage goes to Intel at 3 nm, but the AMD part compensates with a larger core and cache configuration.