AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 vs Intel Core i3-7320 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unusually consistent picture: the Intel Core i3-7320 wins every single head-to-head test, with margins that barely move across the entire Cinebench suite. In the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, Intel scores 408 against AMD's 338, a 20.7% lead. That advantage persists almost exactly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where Intel posts 1703 versus 1410, a 20.8% gap. The single-core results tell the same story: Intel leads 240 to 199 in Cinebench R20 single-core (20.6%) and 572 to 474 in Cinebench R23 single-core (20.7%). The most recent test, Cinebench R23 multi-core, shows Intel at 4057 and AMD at 3359, once again a 20.8% margin.

This uniformity is notable. Most CPU comparisons show shifting deltas depending on the workload, but here the deltaPct stays within a razor-thin band of 20.6% to 20.8% across five tests spanning multiple Cinebench versions. That suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent. The Intel chip simply executes the same work faster in every scenario measured.

Looking at aggregate performance, the Intel Core i3-7320 averages 1173 across all benchmark scores, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 averages 1156. That 1.5% difference in average score is far smaller than the head-to-head deltas because the averages incorporate different benchmark mixes. The Intel part sits between the Intel Core i7-3635QM (1170, 0.3% behind) and the Intel Core i5-3550 (1178, 0.4% ahead). The AMD part lands near the AMD Opteron 4334 (1155, 0.1% behind) and the Intel Core i3-8145UE (1154, 0.2% behind). Both CPUs occupy the 33rd percentile of all tested processors, meaning they're mid-pack performers in the broader database.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies entirely. Intel's Core i3-7320 uses the Kaby Lake architecture on Intel's 14nm process, built at Intel's own fabs. AMD's Ryzen Embedded R2312 uses the Zen+ architecture on a 12nm process from GlobalFoundries, with the codename Picasso. The process node difference — 14nm versus 12nm — gives AMD a manufacturing advantage in theory, yet the benchmark results show Intel winning decisively.

Both CPUs have 2 cores and 4 threads, but their cache hierarchies differ. Intel provides 64KB of L1 cache per core and 256KB of L2 per core, while AMD offers 96KB of L1 per core and 512KB of L2 per core. Interestingly, both share 4MB of L3 cache. AMD's larger per-core caches do not translate into a benchmark advantage in these tests. The clock speeds tell part of the story: Intel runs at a fixed 4.10GHz base clock with no boost capability, while AMD has a 2.70GHz base clock that boosts up to 3.50GHz. Even at full boost, AMD's maximum clock is 0.60GHz lower than Intel's fixed clock.

The transistor counts and die sizes differ dramatically. AMD's chip packs 4,940 million transistors on a 210mm² die, while Intel's transistor count and die size are not listed. AMD's integrated graphics are Radeon Vega 3, compared to Intel's HD 630. Memory support is DDR4 dual-channel with identical 38.4 GB/s bandwidth for both. AMD supports ECC memory; Intel does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: Intel provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while AMD offers Gen 3 with only 8 lanes. The power envelope is a major differentiator — Intel is rated at 51W TDP versus AMD's 15W TDP, a 3.4x difference. AMD's socket is FP5, while Intel uses Socket 1151. AMD's part numbers clearly identify it as a Ryzen Embedded product (YE2312C4T2OFH), while Intel's is marked SR358.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-7320 wins in every benchmark category where both chips have data. Multi-core performance is consistently ahead: 20.7% in R15, 20.8% in R20, and 20.8% in R23. Single-core performance shows the same pattern: 20.6% in R20 and 20.7% in R23. This is not a case where one chip wins lightly-threaded workloads and the other wins heavily-threaded ones — Intel dominates both. With only 2 cores and 4 threads on each side, neither chip is a multi-core monster, but Intel extracts more work from the same thread count.

Where AMD does win is in power efficiency and platform features. The 15W TDP versus Intel's 51W means the Ryzen Embedded R2312 consumes far less power while delivering about 83% of Intel's performance in the head-to-head tests. For systems where cooling and power budgets are tight, that tradeoff matters. AMD also brings ECC memory support, which Intel lacks — a feature that can matter in reliability-sensitive embedded or server applications. AMD's larger cache hierarchy (96KB L1 and 512KB L2 per core versus Intel's 64KB and 256KB) might help in workloads that aren't captured by these Cinebench tests, though the data here shows no benefit in rendering workloads.

The Intel part's fixed 4.10GHz clock is a double-edged sword. It provides consistent, predictable performance without relying on boost behavior, but it also means the chip always draws its full 51W TDP. AMD's boost clock of 3.50GHz suggests the chip can scale down when idle, potentially saving power in bursty workloads. The PCIe lane difference — 16 for Intel versus 8 for AMD — could matter for systems needing multiple high-bandwidth expansion cards.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-7320 is the faster processor in every measured benchmark. If raw performance is the only criterion, Intel wins decisively. The 20.7% to 20.8% lead across all Cinebench versions indicates a consistent, repeatable advantage. Both chips sit at the 33rd percentile of all CPUs, so neither is a performance leader in absolute terms, but within this comparison, Intel is clearly the stronger compute part.

However, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 has a compelling counter-argument that the benchmarks don't capture. Its 15W TDP versus Intel's 51W represents a 3.4x power efficiency advantage. For embedded applications, industrial systems, or fanless designs where heat dissipation is a constraint, that power difference can be decisive. The ECC memory support is another feature that shifts the value equation toward AMD for specific use cases like network appliances, storage controllers, or reliability-critical embedded roles.

The release dates also matter for platform longevity. Intel launched in January 2017; AMD launched in June 2022. The AMD platform is five years newer, which may mean better availability, longer support windows, and more modern platform features around the socket. But the core compute performance was set at design time, and Intel's higher clock speed (4.10GHz fixed versus 3.50GHz max boost) gives it an advantage that the newer process node cannot overcome in these tests.

For a desktop user who just wants the fastest 2-core/4-thread Cinebench results, the choice is Intel. For an embedded designer who needs ECC, low power, and can trade ~20% performance for a 3.4x reduction in TDP, the AMD part is the rational pick. The data does not support picking AMD for performance reasons — it only supports picking AMD for power, reliability, and platform considerations.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i3-7320 wins all multi-core tests. It scores 408 versus 338 in Cinebench R15 (20.7% ahead), 1703 versus 1410 in R20 (20.8% ahead), and 4057 versus 3359 in R23 (20.8% ahead).

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: Intel leads by 20.6% in Cinebench R20 single-core (240 versus 199) and by 20.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core (572 versus 474). Intel's 4.10GHz fixed clock versus AMD's 3.50GHz boost clock explains part of this gap.

Q: Does the AMD chip have any benchmark wins?

A: No. In the five head-to-head Cinebench tests, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 wins zero. Intel wins all five with consistent 20.6% to 20.8% margins.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Core i3-7320 has a 51W TDP, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 has a 15W TDP. That means AMD uses about 29% of Intel's power budget while delivering roughly 83% of the performance in these tests.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i3-7320 does not. This is a key differentiator for reliability-focused embedded applications.

Q: How do these chips compare to other processors in the database?

A: Both sit at the 33rd percentile of all CPUs. Intel's average benchmark score is 1173, placing it near the Intel Core i7-3635QM (1170) and Intel Core i5-3550 (1178). AMD's average is 1156, near the AMD Opteron 4334 (1155) and Intel Core i3-8145UE (1154).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-7320 | AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 |

|---|---|---|

| Base Clock | 4.10 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 51W | 15W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Zen+ (Picasso) |

| Process Node | 14nm | 12nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | Not listed | 4,940 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 210mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64KB per core | 96KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 256KB per core | 512KB per core |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU) | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 630 | Radeon Vega 3 |

| Release Date | January 2017 | June 2022 |

| Part Number | SR358 | YE2312C4T2OFH |