AMD Ryzen 5 150 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the AMD Ryzen 5 150 and the Intel Core 5 320?

A: Both processors have 6 physical cores. The AMD Ryzen 5 150 supports 12 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 supports 6 threads.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of thermal design power?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 150 has a TDP of 35 watts, whereas the Intel Core 5 320 operates at a lower 15 watts.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 records a PassMark single-thread score of 4045, which is 22 percent higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 150's score of 3155.

Q: What are the process nodes used by each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 150 is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process at Intel.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Neither processor supports ECC memory; both list ECC memory as false in the recorded specifications.

Q: What memory configurations do the two processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 150 supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 320 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits the two processors into distinct usage profiles. The AMD Ryzen 5 150 wins 6 of the 11 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 320 wins 5. The AMD chip dominates in workloads that scale with thread count and memory bandwidth, whereas the Intel chip leads in single-threaded and physics-based tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 5 150 demonstrates its strengths in integer-heavy workloads. Its PassMark integer math score of 62151 is 92.3 percent ahead of the Intel Core 5 320's 32323, the largest margin in the entire comparison. This advantage extends to data compression, where it scores 211289 versus 148779, a 42 percent lead. Random string sorting also favors the AMD chip, with a score of 22382 against 18038, a 24.1 percent advantage. Data encryption shows a 22.2 percent lead (13425 versus 10984), and extended instructions deliver a 10.7 percent edge (14675 versus 13262). The multithread benchmark confirms the overall pattern: 17492 for AMD versus 15450 for Intel, a 13.2 percent lead.

The Intel Core 5 320 takes the opposite stance. Its single-thread score of 4045 beats the AMD chip's 3155 by 22 percent. Physics processing shows an even larger relative gap: 1221 versus 806, a 34 percent lead for Intel. Floating-point math also goes Intel's way, with a score of 42440 versus 35118, a 17.3 percent advantage. The prime number benchmark delivers the most striking Intel win: 110 versus 47, a 57.3 percent margin. These results suggest the Intel chip handles latency-sensitive and branch-heavy workloads more efficiently.

The overall picture is one of specialization rather than outright superiority. The AMD Ryzen 5 150 excels at throughput-oriented tasks that use its 12 threads and dual-channel memory interface. The Intel Core 5 320, with its higher boost clock and single-channel memory, favors responsiveness in lightly threaded scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 150 uses the Zen 3+ architecture under the Rembrandt-R codename, built on a 6 nm TSMC process with a die size of 210 mm². The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm Intel process; its die size is not recorded in the database.

Cache organization differs substantially. The AMD chip provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip lists 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD processor's larger L3 pool, combined with its 12 threads, gives it a structural advantage in data-heavy workloads that reuse cached information across many threads.

The integrated graphics also differ. AMD pairs the Ryzen 5 150 with a Radeon 660M, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Neither GPU is benchmarked in the head-to-head data, so the comparison focuses on CPU performance.

PCIe connectivity separates the two as well. The AMD chip offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel chip provides Gen 4 with only 6 lanes. This affects expandability for storage and external devices in mobile platforms.

The socket and packaging differ: AMD uses Socket FP7 with part number 100-000000990 (FP7r2), while Intel uses BGA 1516 with part number SAE3H. Both are mobile-market parts with active production status.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 150 and Intel Core 5 320 differ in several key specifications. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.55 GHz. The Intel part starts at a much lower 1.50 GHz base but reaches a slightly higher 4.60 GHz boost. This explains the Intel chip's single-thread advantage despite its lower base frequency.

Thread counts differ: 12 threads for AMD versus 6 for Intel, reflecting the AMD chip's simultaneous multithreading support. TDP also differs notably: 35 watts for AMD versus 15 watts for Intel, making the Intel chip more power-efficient on paper.

Memory support diverges sharply. AMD uses dual-channel DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD chip's wider memory path contributes to its wins in memory-intensive benchmarks like data compression and random string sorting.

Process node differences are significant: 6 nm for AMD versus 3 nm for Intel. The release dates also differ, with AMD launching on 2025-09-30 and Intel on 2026-04-15. The Intel Core 5 320 has a recorded launch MSRP of $340.

Both processors are locked (multiplier not unlocked), neither supports ECC memory, and both target the mobile market segment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The PassMark suite provides a comprehensive comparison across 11 tests. The AMD Ryzen 5 150 wins 6, and the Intel Core 5 320 wins 5. The margins tell the real story.

The AMD chip's largest win comes in integer math, where its score of 62151 crushes the Intel score of 32323, a 92.3 percent advantage. This single result shows how the AMD chip's 12 threads and larger cache benefit arithmetic-heavy workloads. Data compression follows with a 42 percent lead (211289 versus 148779), reinforcing the pattern of throughput-oriented tasks favoring AMD.

Random string sorting gives AMD a 24.1 percent edge (22382 versus 18038), and data encryption shows a 22.2 percent lead (13425 versus 10984). Extended instructions complete the AMD wins with a 10.7 percent margin (14675 versus 13262). The multithread benchmark, often a summary metric, lands at 17492 for AMD versus 15450 for Intel, a 13.2 percent win.

The Intel Core 5 320 counters with its own set of decisive results. The prime number benchmark shows a 57.3 percent lead (110 versus 47), the largest Intel margin. Physics processing gives Intel a 34 percent edge (1221 versus 806). Floating-point math favors Intel by 17.3 percent (42440 versus 35118). The single-thread and single-threaded tests both record identical scores of 4045 for Intel versus 3155 for AMD, a 22 percent gap.

The database places the AMD Ryzen 5 150 in the 84th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34881. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6349P (avg 34890, delta 0), the Intel Core 7 253PTE (avg 34962, delta -0.2), the Intel Core i7-13800H (avg 34988, delta -0.3), and the Intel Core i9-12900HX (avg 35003, delta -0.3). The Intel Core 5 320 sits in the 72nd percentile with an average score of 18023, near the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (avg 17994, delta 0.2), the Intel Core 5 120U (avg 17898, delta 0.7), the Intel Core i5-1334U (avg 18154, delta -0.7), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (avg 17891, delta 0.7).

These percentile positions highlight a substantial overall gap: the AMD chip's average score is roughly 93 percent higher than the Intel chip's. Yet the head-to-head results show that the Intel chip wins the workloads where responsiveness and per-core efficiency matter most. The data indicates a trade-off between raw throughput and single-thread agility, with each processor clearly optimized for a different segment of mobile computing.