OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD Ryzen 3 7320U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£360PassMark benchmark result:8559N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.1 GHzCPU socket:FP6TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Ryzen 3 7320U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.2

Overall score

Score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Score components

90%

5.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 58% of processors
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Score components

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

5.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 56% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £360

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 7320U

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

5.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated Graphics

5.2
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Ryzen 3 7320U has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 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 68% of models
Score components:

60%

5.2

Overall score

40%

8.6

Price

6.2
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FP6
CPU socket
FP6
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor uses the FP6 CPU socket, which is older than that of 52.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
â–¼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.1 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.1 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.1 GHz which is lower than that of 56.2% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.4 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.4 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.4 GHz which is lower than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
6 nm
Semiconductor size
6 nm
â–² Better than 83% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 6 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 82.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 6 nm
Foundry
TSMC 6 nm
â–² Better than 81% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 6 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 81.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
L2 cache
2 MB
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 51% of processors and equal to that of 11.2% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5
DDR memory version
LPDDR5
â–² Better than 89% of models
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 88.9% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,500 MHz
Maximum memory speed
5,500 MHz
â–² Better than 79% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,500 MHz, which is higher than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5500 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5500 MHz
â–² Better than 78% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-5500 MHz, which is higher than that of 78% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 91.7% of processors and equal to 6.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 610M
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 610M
â–² Better than 89% of models
This processor uses the Radeon 610M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 89.3% of processors and equal to that in 1.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Integrated GPU execution units
2
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.7% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
â–² Better than 69% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.7% of processors and equal to that of 7.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 63.1% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

AMD Ryzen 3 7320U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    LPDDR5
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 50% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    6 nm
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 92.1% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    88 GB/s
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (88 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    88 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 87.5% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    5,500 MHz
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5500 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    5,500 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    100 mm²
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
    Foundry
    TSMC 6 nm
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    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
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    95 °C
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV, Pluton
    â–² Better than 70% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 50% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    6 nm
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
    Die size
    100 mm²
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
    Foundry
    TSMC 6 nm
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    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
    Microarchitecture codename
    Mendocino
    â–² Better than 54% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Mendocino vs Kaby Lake).
    Mendocino vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    LPDDR5
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 92.1% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    88 GB/s
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (88 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    88 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 87.5% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    5,500 MHz
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5500 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    5,500 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5-5500 MHz
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    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
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon 610M
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    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
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    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
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    95 °C
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    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
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 12 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (4 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    4 vs 16
  • 17.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,207
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,207 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,207 vs 1,471
  • 25.2% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,614
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,614 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,614 vs 4,829
  • 5 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    95 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 44% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 3 7320U is more expensive than the average processor (£360 vs £250).
    £360 vs £250
  • 5.7% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 3 7320U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.21 vs 6.6).
    6.21 vs 6.56
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    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
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 17.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,207
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,207 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,207 vs 1,471
  • 25.2% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,614
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,614 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,614 vs 4,829
  • 19% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    8,559
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,559 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,559 vs 10,572.5
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.4 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 4.7% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
  • 7.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,315
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,315 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,315 vs 2,500
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 20% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    2 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    2 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 12 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    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
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    95 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
March 2026 (Updated Daily)
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 7320U - CPU Benchmarks
V
vividrepairs.co.uk
26/12/2025
Summary of the review
HP Ryzen 3 Laptop Review UK 2025 - Budget Workhorse Tested
L
laptopmag.com
02/05/2025
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire 3 15 review: Cheap is a feature, not a bug
L
liliputing.com
25/11/2022
Summary of the review
AMD Mendocino benchmarks (Acer Aspire 3 with Ryzen 3 7320U)
P
pcmag.com
12/03/2023
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire 3 (A315-24P) Review
L
laptopmedia.com
31/01/2023
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire 3 (A315-24P) review - affordable daily driver

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 3 7320U

  • Excellent value for budget-conscious users, frequently appearing in laptops under $300
  • Strong power efficiency with a low 15W TDP, contributing to impressive battery life in thin and light laptops
  • Sufficient performance for everyday productivity tasks like web browsing, office work, and school projects
  • Supports modern and fast LPDDR5 memory, which helps responsiveness
  • Stays relatively cool even under heavy workloads due to its 6nm process

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 3 7320U

  • Integrated Radeon 610M graphics are very weak, making it unsuitable for demanding modern games
  • Relies on older Zen 2 architecture from 2019, which lacks the performance of newer Zen 3 or Zen 4 generations
  • Frequently paired with low amounts of non-upgradable (soldered) RAM, limiting long-term multitasking potential
  • May struggle with intensive multitasking or demanding professional software like heavy video editing
  • Lower performance compared to Intel i3 or Ryzen 5 counterparts at similar price points

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 3 7320U is a budget-friendly mobile processor from the Mendocino series, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads based on the Zen 2 architecture with a base clock of 2.4 GHz and a boost up to 4.1 GHz. Built on a modern 6nm TSMC process with a low 15W TDP, it offers excellent power efficiency and long battery life for thin and light laptops, while supporting fast LPDDR5-5500 memory. Main pros include its strong value for everyday tasks, office work, and 4K video playback, along with a integrated Radeon 610M GPU that handles basic multimedia efficiently. However, its downsides include limited performance for demanding gaming or professional creative work due to the older Zen 2 architecture, a relatively weak iGPU with only 2 compute units, and the fact that it is almost always paired with non-upgradeable, soldered RAM.

Compare AMD Ryzen 3 7320U 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 7320U and other processors

No results found