Intel Core 3 100U vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 records an average benchmark score of 18023, while the Intel Core 3 100U records 16148. The Core 5 320 also places in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 70th percentile for the Core 3 100U.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 leads in every single-core test. It scores 1926 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1499 for the Core 3 100U, a 22.2% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the Core 5 320 scores 4045 against 3506, a 13.3% lead.

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core workloads?

A: Results are mixed. The Core 3 100U wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 10624 versus 6197, a 71.4% margin. The Core 5 320 wins Cinebench R20 multi-core with 5462 versus 4462, an 18.3% margin.

Q: What are the core and thread counts of each processor?

A: Both processors have 6 cores. The Intel Core 3 100U has 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 100U boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz. The Core 3 100U also has a lower base clock at 1.20 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320.

Q: How do the integrated graphics differ?

A: The Intel Core 3 100U uses UHD Graphics 64EU, while the Intel Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing nodes. The Intel Core 3 100U is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-U codename, using Intel's 10 nm process. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process. This process difference is significant: the newer 3 nm node for the Core 5 320 delivers substantially higher transistor density and efficiency per clock.

Cache layouts differ markedly. The Core 3 100U provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 320 lists 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and only 6 MB of shared L3. Despite having less L3 cache, the Core 5 320's per-core L1 and L2 allocations are larger, which contributes to its single-threaded advantage.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 3 100U supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but operates on a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 3 100U has no listed memory bandwidth figure in the database. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 3 100U provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Both processors share a 15 W TDP, target the mobile segment, are currently active in production, and have locked multipliers. Neither supports ECC memory. The Core 3 100U uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, while the Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, so they are not socket-compatible. The Core 3 100U launched on 2024-01-07, and the Core 5 320 launched on 2026-04-15.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split: the Intel Core 5 320 dominates in most tests, but the Intel Core 3 100U holds specific multi-core advantages. Across 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, the Core 5 320 wins 14, while the Core 3 100U wins 3.

The Core 5 320's largest victory comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 276 against 150 for the Core 3 100U, a 45.7% lead. That result is unusually lopsided and indicates a major per-core performance gap between the two architectures. The Core 5 320 also wins PassMark extended instructions by 40.5% (13262 versus 7894), PassMark floating point math by 33.3% (42440 versus 28322), and PassMark find prime numbers by 52.7% (110 versus 52). These results suggest the Wildcat Lake core design is substantially stronger on scalar and vector workloads.

In Cinebench R20, the Core 5 320 wins multi-core with 5462 against 4462 (an 18.3% margin) and single-core with 771 against 629 (an 18.4% margin). The Core 5 320 also wins PassMark multithread with 15450 versus 12522, a 19% advantage, and PassMark physics with 1221 versus 876, a 28.3% margin. Data compression goes to the Core 5 320 at 148779 versus 136497, an 8.3% lead, and data encryption goes to the Core 5 320 at 10984 versus 8128, a 26% lead. Random string sorting also favors the Core 5 320, 18038 versus 15191, a 15.8% margin.

The Core 3 100U's three wins are notable. Its largest is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 10624 versus 6197, a 71.4% advantage. This is the single biggest delta in either direction across the entire comparison. The Core 3 100U also wins PassMark integer math with 39580 versus 32323, a 22.5% margin, and Cinebench R15 multi-core with 1070 versus 1054, a narrow 1.5% margin.

The divergence between Cinebench R23 multi-core and Cinebench R20 multi-core is striking. In R20, the Core 5 320 leads by 18.3%; in R23, the Core 3 100U leads by 71.4%. The Core 3 100U's 8 threads versus the Core 5 320's 6 threads likely explains part of this, but the magnitude of the R23 swing suggests workload-specific scaling behavior rather than a simple thread-count effect.

Relative to their nearest rivals, the Core 3 100U sits within 1.2% of the Intel Core i7-1260U, 1.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 4600H, 0.5% of the Intel Core i5-10600KF, and 0.3% of the Intel Core i7-10850H. The Core 5 320 sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core i5-1334U, 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, and 0.7% of the Intel Core 5 120U. Both processors are tightly clustered among their peers.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, as recorded in the database.

| Specification | Intel Core 3 100U | Intel Core 5 320 |

|---|---|---|

| Threads | 8 | 6 |

| Base clock | 1.20 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.70 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-U | Wildcat Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB |

| L3 cache | 10 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not listed | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 64EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Release date | 2024-01-07 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $426 | $340 |

| Part number | SRMYL | SAE3H |

Fields not listed here, including cores, TDP, manufacturer, market segment, production status, ECC support, and multiplier unlock status, are identical for both processors.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two different design philosophies. The Intel Core 3 100U uses a Raptor Lake architecture with 8 threads, a 4.70 GHz boost clock, and 10 MB of L3 cache to win specific multi-threaded workloads. Its 71.4% victory in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 22.5% lead in PassMark integer math show that workloads which scale heavily with thread count and cache capacity can favor this chip.

The Intel Core 5 320, built on the newer Wildcat Lake architecture and 3 nm node, wins the vast majority of tests. Its single-core dominance is consistent across every recorded single-thread benchmark, with leads ranging from 13.3% in PassMark single-thread to 45.7% in Cinebench R15 single-core. It also wins multi-threaded tests in Cinebench R20 and PassMark multithread, plus every PassMark workload except integer math. The higher average benchmark score of 18023 versus 16148, combined with the 72nd versus 70th percentile placement, gives the Core 5 320 the overall performance edge.

Users who prioritize single-thread responsiveness, encryption, compression, floating point math, and extended instruction workloads should favor the Intel Core 5 320 based on the benchmark results. Users who need maximum multi-core throughput in Cinebench R23 or integer-heavy workloads should consider the Intel Core 3 100U, despite its lower overall average score. The Core 3 100U's dual-channel memory support and larger L3 cache may also factor into memory-sensitive scenarios, though the database records no direct memory bandwidth figure for that chip. For general-purpose mobile use, the Core 5 320 is the stronger choice in 14 of 17 recorded comparisons.