OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen 3 7320C review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£350PassMark multi-core score:8193N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.1 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Ryzen 3 7320C Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.4/10

Overall score

Score
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components

40%

5.1

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 59% of processors
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

5.4

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.3

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 60%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £350
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 3 7320C

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

5.4

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.3

Integrated graphics

5.1
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

7.1
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 80.8% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.1 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.1 GHz which is lower than that of 58.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.4 GHz which is lower than that of 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
8,193
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 8,193 in PassMark, which is lower than 58.4% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
6 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 6 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 81% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 6 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 6 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 80.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 87.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,500 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,500 MHz, which is higher than that of 77.3% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5500 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-5500 MHz, which is higher than that of 76.7% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 610M
This processor uses the Radeon 610M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 88.9% of processors and equal to that in 1.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.5% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,500 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,500 MHz which is higher than that of 97.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 82.1% of processors and equal to 3.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD Ryzen 3 7320C vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 50% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (6 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    6 nm vs 12 nm
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 87.6% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (88 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    88 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (100 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    100 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 71.9% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Mendocino vs Kaby Lake).
    Mendocino vs Kaby Lake
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    May 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • 50% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (6 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    6 nm vs 12 nm
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (100 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    100 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Mendocino vs Kaby Lake).
    Mendocino vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 87.6% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (88 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    88 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 71.9% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5-5500 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5-5,500 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 610M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 610M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 4.29x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,500 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 24.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,163 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,163 vs 1,535
  • 30% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,644 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,644 vs 5,209
  • 12 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (4 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    4 vs 16
  • 28.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,193 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,193 vs 11,469
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, Secure Processor, SME, SEV, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, Secure Processor, SME, SEV, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 40% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 3 7320C is more expensive than the average processor (£350 vs £250).
    £350 vs £250
  • 2.7% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 3 7320C has worse value for money than the average processor (7.1 vs 7.3).
    7.1 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, Secure Processor, SME, SEV, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, Secure Processor, SME, SEV, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 24.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,163 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,163 vs 1,535
  • 30% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,644 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,644 vs 5,209
  • 28.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,193 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,193 vs 11,469
  • 6.8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 10.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,292 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,292 vs 2,558
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • 12 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (4 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    4 vs 16
  • 75% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 3 7320C

  • Efficient multitasking performance for productivity tasks and educational use
  • Strong battery life, with some users reporting over 10-14 hours of use
  • Snappy and responsive for everyday web browsing and office applications
  • Excellent value for money, particularly in budget Chromebook models
  • Low power consumption (15W TDP) leads to quiet operation and minimal heat
  • Support for fast LPDDR5 memory improves overall system responsiveness

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 3 7320C

  • Limited integrated graphics performance (Radeon 610M with only 2 CUs) is weak for modern gaming
  • Uses older Zen 2 architecture compared to newer Zen 3 or Zen 4 alternatives
  • Performance may lag or stutter during heavier workloads or demanding Android games
  • Locked multiplier prevents any potential performance gains through overclocking
  • Integrated into devices that are often described as heavy or bulky for their size

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 3 7320C is a 6nm mobile processor from the Mendocino series specifically optimized for Chromebooks, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads based on the Zen 2 architecture. It operates at a base frequency of 2.4 GHz with a maximum boost clock of 4.1 GHz, supported by 4 MB of L3 cache and a highly efficient 15W TDP. Main advantages include its modern 6nm fabrication process for superior power efficiency, support for fast LPDDR5-5500 memory, and integrated Radeon 610M graphics utilizing the RDNA 2 architecture. However, its reliance on the older Zen 2 core architecture limits its raw performance compared to newer Zen 3 or Zen 4 counterparts, and it is restricted to a maximum of 16 GB of non-upgradeable RAM.

Compare AMD Ryzen 3 7320C with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 3 7320C and other processors

No results found