Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison
Intel Core 3 305
Core 5 320
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 305 vs Intel Core 5 320
The Verdict
The Intel Core 3 305 and Intel Core 5 320 are remarkably close in overall performance, but they split victories across different workload types. The Core 3 305 wins 8 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Core 5 320 takes 9. The database shows the Core 3 305 holds a substantial edge in multi-threaded rendering, while the Core 5 320 counters with superior single-thread scores and some data-processing tasks.
The Core 3 305 is the pick for users who prioritize heavily multi-threaded workloads, especially Cinebench rendering. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13123 is more than double the Core 5 320's 6197, a 111.8% advantage. That is not a marginal difference; it is a decisive gap. The Core 3 305 also leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core by 25.4% (1322 vs 1054) and edges out the Core 5 320 in Cinebench R20 multi-core by 0.9% (5511 vs 5462).
The Core 5 320 is the choice for users who value single-thread responsiveness and lighter-threaded tasks. It wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 32.6% (276 vs 186) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 3.8% (1926 vs 1852). In PassMark tests, the Core 5 320 leads in data compression, floating-point math, integer math, multithread, random string sorting, and single-thread performance, though most of these margins are under 2.4%.
Both processors sit at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, and their average benchmark scores differ by only 1.5% (18302 for the Core 3 305 vs 18023 for the Core 5 320). The Core 3 305's nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-14100, is 0.1% faster on average, while the Core 5 320 trails the Intel Core i5-1334U by 0.7%. For most users, the deciding factor is simple: render-heavy workflows favor the Core 3 305, while general responsiveness and mixed tasks slightly favor the Core 5 320.
Architecture Differences
Both processors share the same fundamental architecture. They are built on Intel's 3 nm process node and belong to the Wildcat Lake codename family, with the same Core generation designation. Both use the Intel BGA 1516 socket and are classified as mobile parts. Each has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning neither employs hyper-threading. The L1 cache is 192 KB for both, L2 is 2.5 MB, and L3 is 6 MB shared. Memory support is identical: DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory, and both use PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Both have locked multipliers and carry the same release date.
The architectural differences are limited to two fields. First, the boost clock: the Core 3 305 runs at 4.30 GHz, while the Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz. Base clocks are identical at 1.50 GHz. Second, the integrated graphics differ. The Core 3 305 features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Core 5 320 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. This means the Core 5 320 has double the graphics execution units, which could benefit tasks that offload work to the iGPU, though the CPU benchmark data does not directly measure graphics performance.
The part numbers also differ: SAE3L for the Core 3 305 and SAE3H for the Core 5 320. Both have a TDP of 15 watts, making them power-efficient mobile processors. The production status for both is active.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The most striking result in the database is the Cinebench R23 multi-core test. The Core 3 305 scores 13123, while the Core 5 320 manages only 6197, giving the Core 3 305 a 111.8% lead. This is the largest delta in any benchmark between the two. It is importantly the Core 3 305 also leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core by 25.4% (1322 vs 1054) and in Cinebench R20 multi-core by 0.9% (5511 vs 5462). The R23 result is an outlier relative to the R15 and R20 gaps, but the direction is consistent: the Core 3 305 is the multi-core renderer.
Single-core results flip the story. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 5 320 scores 276 versus 186 for the Core 3 305, a 32.6% advantage. The Core 5 320 also wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 1926 versus 1852, a 3.8% margin. The Cinebench R20 single-core test is a near tie, with the Core 3 305 edging out the Core 5 320 by 0.8% (777 vs 771).
PassMark tests show a more balanced split. The Core 5 320 wins data compression (148779 vs 146857, a 1.3% edge), floating-point math (42440 vs 42284, 0.4%), integer math (32323 vs 32295, 0.1%), multithread (15450 vs 15439, 0.1%), random string sorting (18038 vs 17623, 2.3%), and both single-thread tests (4045 vs 3977, 1.7%). The Core 3 305 counters with wins in data encryption (11019 vs 10984, 0.3%), extended instructions (13543 vs 13262, 2.1%), find prime numbers (115 vs 110, 4.5%), and physics (1233 vs 1221, 1%).
The overall win tally is 9 for the Core 5 320 and 8 for the Core 3 305, but the magnitude of the Core 3 305's Cinebench R23 multi-core win outweighs several narrow PassMark losses. The data suggests that the Core 3 305's multi-core advantage is workload-specific rather than universal.
Specification Differences
| Specification | Intel Core 3 305 | Intel Core 5 320 |
|----------------|------------------|------------------|
| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.60 GHz |
| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |
| Launch MSRP | $309 | $340 |
| Part number | SAE3L | SAE3H |
All other specifications are identical: 6 cores, 6 threads, 1.50 GHz base clock, 15 W TDP, Intel BGA 1516 socket, 3 nm process, Wildcat Lake codename, 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, 6 MB shared L3, DDR5/LPDDR5X memory support, single-channel memory bus, 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC, PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, locked multiplier, and an active production status. Both were released on the same date.
The Core 5 320 commands a $31 higher launch MSRP, which corresponds to its higher boost clock and doubled Xe graphics cores. Whether that premium is justified depends on the user's workload, as the benchmark data shows the Core 3 305 winning the most demanding multi-threaded test by a wide margin.
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?
A: The Intel Core 3 305 is significantly faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 13123 versus 6197 for the Core 5 320, a 111.8% advantage. It also leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core by 25.4% and Cinebench R20 multi-core by 0.9%.
Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?
A: The Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz. Their base clocks are identical at 1.50 GHz.
Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?
A: Yes, both have 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither supports hyper-threading.
Q: Is there a difference in integrated graphics?
A: Yes. The Intel Core 3 305 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core, while the Intel Core 5 320 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. This means the Core 5 320 has twice the graphics execution units.
Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?
A: The Intel Core 5 320 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 32.6% (276 vs 186) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 3.8% (1926 vs 1852). In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core 3 305 edges ahead by 0.8% (777 vs 771). PassMark single-thread scores favor the Core 5 320 at 4045 versus 3977.
Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?
A: The Intel Core 3 305 has an average benchmark score of 18302, while the Intel Core 5 320 scores 18023. The Core 3 305 is 1.5% higher on average, and both sit at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database.