Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload type. The Intel Core 5 120 wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 320 wins 4. The Core 5 120 dominates multi-threaded and memory-intensive workloads, while the Core 5 320 takes the single-thread and prime-number processing tests.

The Core 5 120 is the clear choice for heavily threaded applications. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18255 versus 6197 for the Core 5 320 represents a 194.6% advantage, the largest margin in any recorded test. The gap persists across the entire Cinebench multi-core suite: R15 shows 1840 versus 1054 (74.6% ahead), and R20 shows 7667 versus 5462 (40.4% ahead). PassMark multi-thread results follow the same pattern, with the Core 5 120 scoring 18597 against 15450, a 20.4% edge. Integer math also favors the Core 5 120 heavily, 60462 versus 32323, an 87.1% difference, indicating strong throughput for calculation-heavy tasks.

The Core 5 320 wins in single-core responsiveness and specific algorithmic workloads. PassMark single-thread shows 4045 versus 3595, an 11.1% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core also goes to the Core 5 320, 276 versus 259, a 6.2% margin. The find prime numbers test is the other win, 110 versus 77, a 30% advantage for the Core 5 320. These wins suggest the newer architecture handles latency-sensitive and branch-heavy workloads more efficiently per thread.

For data compression, encryption, floating point, physics, and random string sorting, the Core 5 120 leads by margins ranging from 1.3% to 47.6%. The data compression gap is substantial at 47.6% (219535 versus 148779). Extended instructions favor the Core 5 120 by 7.6% (14264 versus 13262). Floating point math is a modest 6.9% win (45383 versus 42440). Physics shows 9.2% (1333 versus 1221), and random string sorting shows 19.2% (21499 versus 18038). The data encryption margin is the closest at 1.3% (11131 versus 10984).

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The Core 5 120 averages 25362 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 320 averages 18023, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The Core 5 120's nearest rivals by average score are the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D at 25365 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-11700KF at 25423 (-0.2%), the Intel Core i5-13400F at 25292 (0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 7840U at 25432 (-0.3%). The Core 5 320's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17994 (0.2%), the Intel Core 5 120U at 17898 (0.7%), the Intel Core i5-1334U at 18154 (-0.7%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17891 (0.7%).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design points. The Intel Core 5 120 is a Raptor Lake-R desktop part built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 163 mm². It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform and belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The Intel Core 5 320 is a Wildcat Lake mobile processor built on a 3 nm process, with no recorded die size, using the Intel BGA 1516 socket and belonging to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 5 120 provides 6 cores and 12 threads, enabling simultaneous multithreading. The Core 5 320 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading support. This directly explains the large multi-core benchmark gaps. The Core 5 320 compensates with a higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 4.50 GHz, but its base clock is much lower at 1.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz. The thermal design power also diverges sharply: 65 W for the Core 5 120 versus 15 W for the Core 5 320.

Cache hierarchies show different strategies. The Core 5 120 uses per-core L1 of 80 KB and per-core L2 of 1.25 MB, with 18 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 320 lists a total L1 of 192 KB and total L2 of 2.5 MB, with only 6 MB of shared L3. The smaller L3 on the Core 5 320 likely contributes to its lower multi-threaded throughput, while the larger per-thread resources may help its single-thread performance.

Memory support and platform features differ. The Core 5 120 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory in single-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 120 offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core 5 320 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics separate the two as well. The Core 5 120 uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both have active production status. The release dates differ, with the Core 5 120 launching on 2025-07-30 and the Core 5 320 launching on 2026-04-15. The Core 5 120 carries part number SA35V, while the Core 5 320 carries part number SAE3H. The Core 5 120 has a launch MSRP of $211, while the Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in the head-to-head set is Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core 5 120 scores 18255 against 6197 for the Core 5 320, a 194.6% advantage. This test heavily weights sustained multi-threaded rendering, where the Core 5 120's 12 threads against 6 threads provides a decisive edge. The R15 multi-core test shows a smaller but still substantial gap: 1840 versus 1054, a 74.6% lead.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 7667 versus 5462, a 40.4% margin. This narrower gap compared to R23 suggests the workload scales differently across test versions, but the Core 5 120 maintains the lead throughout. Integer math follows closely behind with an 87.1% advantage: 60462 versus 32323. This test measures raw arithmetic throughput, where the combination of more threads and higher base clock on the Core 5 120 produces a large performance delta.

The Core 5 320's wins are concentrated in single-thread and specialized tests. PassMark single-thread (recorded identically as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread) shows 4045 versus 3595, an 11.1% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 276 versus 259, a 6.2% lead. The find prime numbers test shows 110 versus 77, a 30% lead. These results indicate the Core 5 320's newer 3 nm architecture and higher boost clock provide better per-thread execution for certain instruction patterns.

Several mid-range gaps deserve attention. Data compression shows 219535 versus 148779, a 47.6% lead for the Core 5 120. This test benefits from the larger L3 cache and additional threads. Multithread PassMark shows 18597 versus 15450, a 20.4% lead. Random string sorting shows 21499 versus 18038, a 19.2% lead. Extended instructions show 14264 versus 13262, a 7.6% lead. Floating point math shows 45383 versus 42440, a 6.9% lead. Physics shows 1333 versus 1221, a 9.2% lead.

The narrowest margin is data encryption: 11131 versus 10984, a 1.3% lead for the Core 5 120. This near-tie suggests the encryption workload is limited by per-core throughput rather than thread count, and the Core 5 320's architectural advantages nearly close the gap. The Cinebench R20 single-core test is the outlier among single-thread results: the Core 5 120 wins 1082 versus 771, a 40.3% margin. This contrasts with the R15 single-core result where the Core 5 320 wins, indicating different workload scaling across Cinebench versions.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Core 5 120 uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 5 320 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clock is 2.50 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, while boost clock is 4.50 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. Thermal design power is 65 W versus 15 W. The socket is Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 1516.

Architecture and process node separate the parts: Raptor Lake on 10 nm for the Core 5 120, with a 163 mm² die size, versus Wildcat Lake on 3 nm for the Core 5 320, with no die size recorded. Cache configurations differ: the Core 5 120 lists per-core L1 of 80 KB and per-core L2 of 1.25 MB with 18 MB shared L3, while the Core 5 320 lists total L1 of 192 KB and total L2 of 2.5 MB with 6 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs: the Core 5 120 supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, while the Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel mode, with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ: Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Core 5 120, Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 5 320. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Market segment, release date, and launch MSRP all differ. The Core 5 120 is a desktop part released on 2025-07-30 with a launch MSRP of $211. The Core 5 320 is a mobile part released on 2026-04-15 with a launch MSRP of $340. Both are active production, both lack an unlocked multiplier, both have no ECC memory support, and both are manufactured by Intel. The part numbers are SA35V for the Core 5 120 and SAE3H for the Core 5 320.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 has 12 threads across 6 cores, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 threads across 6 cores. This gives the Core 5 120 a 2x thread advantage.

Q: Why does the Intel Core 5 320 win the single-thread PassMark test?

A: The Core 5 320 scores 4045 versus 3595 for the Core 5 120, an 11.1% advantage. This aligns with its higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 4.50 GHz and its newer 3 nm Wildcat Lake architecture.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the biggest difference, with the Core 5 120 scoring 18255 against 6197 for the Core 5 320, a 194.6% lead.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 120 supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in single-channel mode with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core 5 120 averages 25362 across all recorded tests, placing in the 77th percentile. The Core 5 320 averages 18023, placing in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How close is the data encryption test?

A: The Core 5 120 leads with 11131 against 10984 for the Core 5 320, a margin of only 1.3%. This is the narrowest gap in the head-to-head set.