Intel Core 3 100HL vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core 3 100HL therefore provides both a higher core count and simultaneous multithreading, which the Core 5 320 lacks entirely.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL records an average benchmark score of 23545, placing it in the 76th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 320 records an average score of 18023, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The Core 3 100HL sits about 23% higher in average score.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor according to the database?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8540U (delta -0.7%), Intel Core i5-11500 (delta -0.7%), Intel Core Ultra 7 266V (delta 1.1%), and AMD Ryzen 7 5800H (delta 1.2%). The Intel Core 5 320's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (delta 0.2%), Intel Core 5 120U (delta 0.7%), Intel Core i5-1334U (delta -0.7%), and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (delta 0.7%).

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: Both processors share the same boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The base clock differs, however: the Core 3 100HL runs at 2.10 GHz while the Core 5 320 runs at 1.50 GHz.

Q: What is the release date and launch MSRP for the Intel Core 5 320?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 was released on 2026-04-15 with a launch MSRP of $340. The Intel Core 3 100HL was released earlier on 2024-04-07 and has no recorded launch MSRP.

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL wins 10 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 320 wins 7. The Core 3 100HL's victories are heavily concentrated in multi-threaded workloads, while the Core 5 320 takes most single-thread and specialized instruction tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Intel Core 3 100HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on Intel's 3 nm process, representing a newer fabrication node with a different microarchitecture.

Core organization differs substantially. The Core 3 100HL packs 8 cores with 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement where some cores support hyperthreading. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning every core is a plain physical core with no additional thread support. This fundamental difference explains much of the performance gap in heavily parallel workloads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 3 100HL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 320 has a smaller total footprint: 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 100HL therefore offers double the L3 capacity, which benefits workloads with large working sets.

Memory support differs in both type and channel configuration. The Core 3 100HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but uses a single-channel memory bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The dual-channel configuration of the Core 3 100HL provides a bandwidth advantage for memory-intensive tasks, though no exact bandwidth figure is recorded for that processor.

PCIe lane counts also differ. The Core 3 100HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Both use the same PCIe generation but the Core 3 100HL has more available lanes for expansion.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 100HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The market segments also differ: the Core 3 100HL targets desktop systems with an Intel Socket 1700 package, while the Core 5 320 targets mobile systems with an Intel BGA 1516 package.

Power characteristics show a significant split. The Core 3 100HL has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15 watts. This 30-watt difference reflects the mobile orientation of the Core 5 320 and the desktop orientation of the Core 3 100HL.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 100HL dominates in multi-threaded throughput. Its 8 cores and 12 threads, combined with 12 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory, produce decisive wins in Cinebench multicore tests and in integer-heavy PassMark workloads. The largest victory comes in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Core 3 100HL leads by 141.2%. This processor is the clear choice for rendering, compilation, and other workloads that scale with core count.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in several specialized and single-thread categories. It leads in Cinebench R15 single-core by 23.2%, in PassMark extended instructions by 6%, in PassMark find prime numbers by 56.4%, in PassMark floating point math by 0.8%, in PassMark physics by 24%, and in PassMark single-thread by 7.7%. Its 3 nm process and newer microarchitecture give it an edge in latency-sensitive and instruction-specific tasks, despite having fewer cores and a lower TDP.

The split is not merely about core count. The Core 5 320's wins in physics and floating point math indicate strengths in workloads that benefit from higher per-core efficiency. The Core 3 100HL's wins in data compression (35.9%), integer math (74.2%), random string sorting (28.7%), and multithread (13.8%) show a broader advantage in general-purpose throughput.

For desktop users running heavily threaded applications, the Core 3 100HL is the stronger option. For mobile users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness and power efficiency, the Core 5 320 delivers competitive results at a fraction of the power draw.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category.

The Core 3 100HL has 8 cores and 12 threads; the Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The base clock of the Core 3 100HL is 2.10 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320. Both share a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Power consumption differs dramatically: 45 W TDP for the Core 3 100HL versus 15 W TDP for the Core 5 320.

The socket and market segment differ: Intel Socket 1700 and Desktop for the Core 3 100HL, Intel BGA 1516 and Mobile for the Core 5 320.

Architecture and codename differ: Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake-PS for the Core 3 100HL, Wildcat Lake for the Core 5 320. The process node is 10 nm for the former and 3 nm for the latter.

Cache sizes differ at every level: 80 KB L1 per core versus 192 KB L1 total, 2 MB L2 per core versus 2.5 MB L2 total, and 12 MB shared L3 versus 6 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 dual-channel for the Core 3 100HL, DDR5 and LPDDR5X single-channel for the Core 5 320. Only the Core 5 320 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

PCIe configuration differs: Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core 3 100HL, Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 5 320.

Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 48EU for the Core 3 100HL, Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for the Core 5 320.

Release dates differ: 2024-04-07 for the Core 3 100HL, 2026-04-15 for the Core 5 320. The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340; the Core 3 100HL has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clear pattern: the Core 3 100HL wins the multi-threaded tests by large margins, while the Core 5 320 takes the single-thread and specialized tests.

The largest single win for the Core 3 100HL comes in Cinebench R23 multicore, where it scores 14948 against 6197 for the Core 5 320, a delta of 141.2%. This result reflects the combined effect of more cores, more threads, and larger cache. The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows a similar story: 1506 versus 1054, a 42.9% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a smaller but still decisive margin: 6278 versus 5462, a 14.9% delta.

The Core 3 100HL also wins the single-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 886 versus 771, a 14.9% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2110 versus 1926, a 9.6% delta. The only Cinebench single-core loss comes in R15, where the Core 5 320 scores 276 versus 212, a 23.2% delta in its favor.

PassMark results are mixed. The Core 3 100HL wins integer math by a wide margin: 56308 versus 32323, a 74.2% delta. It also wins data compression (202225 versus 148779, 35.9% delta), random string sorting (23223 versus 18038, 28.7% delta), multithread (17586 versus 15450, 13.8% delta), and data encryption (11964 versus 10984, 8.9% delta).

The Core 5 320 wins PassMark find prime numbers by a substantial margin: 110 versus 48, a 56.4% delta. It also wins PassMark physics (1221 versus 928, 24% delta), extended instructions (13262 versus 12463, 6% delta), single-thread (4045 versus 3735, 7.7% delta), and floating point math (42440 versus 42108, 0.8% delta).

The win distribution of 10 to 7 in favor of the Core 3 100HL understates the magnitude of its multi-threaded advantage. The average of the Core 3 100HL's wins is substantially larger than the average of the Core 5 320's wins. The Core 5 320's victories are mostly narrow, with the exception of find prime numbers and Cinebench R15 single-core. The Core 3 100HL's victories include multiple deltas above 30%, including the 141.2% blowout in Cinebench R23 multicore.

The overall benchmark picture shows a desktop processor with superior parallel throughput facing a mobile processor with better per-core efficiency in certain instruction patterns. The Core 3 100HL's percentile ranking of 76 versus 72 for the Core 5 320 aligns with this pattern: the Core 3 100HL sits higher in the overall distribution, but the Core 5 320 remains competitive in specific workloads.