AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U and Intel Core 5 320 are both six-core mobile processors, but they are built on fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD part is a 28 W Zen 4 processor with simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part is a 15 W design with six physical cores and no hyperthreading. The recorded data shows a clear split: the AMD processor is the compute-focused option with higher clock speeds and a larger cache, while the Intel processor delivers a higher average benchmark score and a better overall percentile ranking. The following analysis breaks down the two processors based entirely on the benchmark and specification data available.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 320 wins on overall average benchmark score. Its average score is 18,023, which places it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has an average benchmark score of 0, which is a placeholder indicating that no benchmark records are available for it in this database. This means that, based on the data, the Intel part is the only one of the two with a measurable performance profile, and it sits comfortably ahead of its nearest rivals. The Intel Core 5 320 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core 5 120U, and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT. It is 0.7% behind the Intel Core i5-1334U. These are all close margins, indicating that the Intel Core 5 320 is positioned in a competitive mid-range performance band.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U wins on raw core resources and clock speed. It operates with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, compared to the Intel part's 1.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. The AMD processor also supports 12 threads via simultaneous multithreading, doubling its thread count over the Intel part's six threads. Its cache hierarchy is substantially larger: 16 MB of shared L3 cache versus 6 MB on the Intel part, plus 1 MB of L2 per core versus 2.5 MB total L2 on the Intel part. The AMD processor also supports ECC memory and has a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. For workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth and cache capacity, the AMD processor has the structural advantage.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins on efficiency and platform flexibility. Its 15 W TDP is nearly half of the AMD processor's 28 W TDP. The Intel part supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the AMD part supports only DDR5. The Intel processor also has a smaller process node at 3 nm (Intel foundry) versus 4 nm (TSMC) for the AMD part, and its die size is not recorded, whereas the AMD die is 178 mm² with 25,000 million transistors. For thermally constrained systems, the Intel part's lower power envelope is a decisive advantage, though the trade-off is a significantly reduced memory bandwidth and PCIe lane count.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core 5 320 is the better choice for any workload that relies on measured multi-threaded and single-threaded performance. Its benchmark suite shows a complete profile: Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6,197, single-core score of 1,926, and PassMark integer math score of 32,323. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has no recorded benchmark scores, so its real-world performance cannot be quantified from the database. The Intel part's 72nd percentile ranking versus the AMD part's 50th percentile (which is based on a zero average score) further reinforces that the Intel processor holds the performance advantage in the recorded data.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U is the better choice for systems that require error-correcting memory, higher memory bandwidth, or a larger cache pool. Its dual-channel memory bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth are nearly 50% higher than the Intel part's single-channel 59.7 GB/s. The AMD processor's 16 MB L3 cache is more than double the Intel part's 6 MB. It also offers 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, versus 6 lanes on the Intel part. These features make the AMD processor suitable for embedded applications that need to move large amounts of data or run cache-sensitive code, provided the application can tolerate the higher 28 W power draw.

For a general-purpose mobile processor, the Intel Core 5 320 is the data-supported winner. It has an average score of 18,023, a launch MSRP of $340, and a 72nd percentile ranking. The AMD part has no benchmark scores, no launch MSRP, and a 50th percentile ranking. The choice is clear: if measured performance matters, the Intel part is the only one with recorded performance data, and it is competitive with established processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core i5-1334U.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark comparison between the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U and Intel Core 5 320 is not populated in the database. There are zero head-to-head benchmark entries, zero wins for the AMD processor, and zero wins for the Intel processor. This means there is no direct test-by-test comparison available. However, the Intel Core 5 320 has a full set of standalone benchmark scores, which can be analyzed against its nearest rivals.

The Intel Core 5 320's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6,197 and single-core score of 1,926 are the primary indicators of its rendering performance. Its Cinebench R20 scores are 5,462 multi-core and 771 single-core. The Cinebench R15 scores are 1,054 multi-core and 276 single-core. In PassMark tests, the processor scores 148,779 in data compression, 10,984 in data encryption, 13,262 in extended instructions, 110 in find prime numbers, 42,440 in floating point math, 32,323 in integer math, 15,450 in multithread, 1,221 in physics, 18,038 in random string sorting, and 4,045 in single-thread. These scores show a processor that is balanced between integer and floating-point work, with a strong showing in compression and sorting tasks.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core 5 320 are all within a 0.7% margin of its average score. The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 has an average score of 17,994, which is 0.2% lower. The Intel Core 5 120U has an average score of 17,898, which is 0.7% lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT has an average score of 17,891, which is 0.7% lower. The Intel Core i5-1334U has an average score of 18,154, which is 0.7% higher. These margins are tiny, indicating that the Intel Core 5 320 is statistically equivalent to all four rivals in overall performance. The only measurable difference is the 72nd percentile ranking, which puts it above the median but not in the top tier.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has no benchmark scores to compare. Its 50th percentile ranking is derived from an average score of 0, which is not a real performance value. Therefore, any performance comparison between the two processors must be based on the Intel part's scores alone, and the AMD part's specifications cannot be validated against any measured results.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile vs all CPUs of 50. The Intel Core 5 320 has 17 recorded benchmark scores across Cinebench and PassMark tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the Intel Core 5 320 and its closest rival?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has an average score of 18,023. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, has an average score of 17,994, a delta of 0.2%. The Intel Core i5-1334U is the only rival ahead, with a delta of -0.7% relative to the Intel Core 5 320.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus. The Intel Core 5 320 has a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus that supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

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

A: No. The Intel Core 5 320 has ECC memory set to false. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has ECC memory set to true.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has a TDP of 28 W. The Intel Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel part consumes 13 W less power.

Q: How many threads does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U supports 12 threads from 6 cores. The Intel Core 5 320 supports 6 threads from 6 cores, with no simultaneous multithreading.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U and Intel Core 5 320 differ fundamentally in architecture. The AMD part is based on Zen 4, specifically the Hawk Point codename, and is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel part uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel. The AMD processor has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the Intel processor's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The core configurations are identical in core count but differ in threading. Both have 6 cores, but the AMD part supports 12 threads via simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part supports only 6 threads. The AMD processor has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Intel processor has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The AMD part's clocks are significantly higher, but the Intel part's lower base clock suggests a more aggressive power-saving design.

Cache hierarchies are notably different. The AMD processor has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared 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's L3 cache is 2.67 times larger, and its per-core L2 is 4 times larger. Memory support also differs: the AMD part supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part supports ECC memory; the Intel part does not.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The AMD processor provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel processor provides only 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. This is a substantial difference for embedded applications that need to attach multiple controllers or accelerators. Integrated graphics also differ: the AMD part uses the Radeon 760M, while the Intel part uses the Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Both are mobile-segment processors, and both are in active production. The AMD part was released on 2024-04-01, while the Intel part has a release date of 2026-04-15. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $340, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded. The Intel part is not multiplier unlocked, and neither is the AMD part. The AMD part uses the AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516.