Ryzen 5 1600 vs Ultra 5 332
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 5 332 outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1030 | 1215 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 67 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.41 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 4.55 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | GlobalFoundries |
| Architecture codename | Panther Lake (2026) | Summit Ridge (2017) |
| Release date | no data | 11 April 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Core Ultra 5 332 and Ryzen 5 1600 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Performance-cores | 2 | no data |
| Low Power Efficient-cores | 4 | no data |
| Threads | 6 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 32 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 12 MB Intel® Smart Cache | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | no data | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core Ultra 5 332 and Ryzen 5 1600 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCBGA2540 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | W | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Ultra 5 332 and Ryzen 5 1600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| SIPP | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | + | - |
| Supported AI Software Frameworks | OpenVINO™, WindowsML, DirectML, ONNX RT, WebNN | - |
Security technologies
Core Ultra 5 332 and Ryzen 5 1600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Ultra 5 332 and Ryzen 5 1600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Ultra 5 332 and Ryzen 5 1600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | LPDDR5X-7467, DDR5-6400 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® Graphics | N/A |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 2.3 GHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core Ultra 5 332 and Ryzen 5 1600 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 4 | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core Ultra 5 332 and Ryzen 5 1600 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over eDP | 3840 x 2400 @ 120Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core Ultra 5 332 and Ryzen 5 1600 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX 12 Ultimate | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core Ultra 5 332 and Ryzen 5 1600.
| PCIe version | 5.0 and 4.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 16 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.76 | 7.00 |
| Threads | 6 | 12 |
Ultra 5 332 has a 25.1% higher aggregate performance score.
Ryzen 5 1600, on the other hand, has 100% more threads.
The Intel Core Ultra 5 332 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Core Ultra 5 332 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 5 1600 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
