5 320 vs EPYC 7552
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7552 outperforms Core 5 320 by a whopping 282% 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 | 170 | 1092 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.10 | 11.04 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.92 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2019−2020) | Wildcat Lake (2026) |
| Release date | 7 August 2019 (6 years ago) | 16 April 2026 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,025 | $340 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 5 320 has 256% better value for money than EPYC 7552.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of EPYC 7552 and Core 5 320: 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 | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 96 | 6 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.35 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| Multiplier | 22 | no data |
| L1 cache | 3 MB | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 24 MB | 2.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 192 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7552 and Core 5 320 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | SP3 | Intel BGA 1516 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7552 and Core 5 320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 7552 and Core 5 320 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7552 and Core 5 320 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7552 and Core 5 320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR5, LPDDR5X |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7552 and Core 5 320.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 6 |
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 | 33.18 | 8.69 |
| Recency | 7 August 2019 | 16 April 2026 |
| Physical cores | 48 | 6 |
| Threads | 96 | 6 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 15 Watt |
EPYC 7552 has a 282% higher aggregate performance score, and 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads.
Core 5 320, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 1233% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 7552 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core 5 320 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7552 is a server/workstation processor while Core 5 320 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
