CPU Comparison

The Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core 5 120U are both 15-watt mobile processors, but they deliver distinctly different performance profiles. The Core 5 320 wins the majority of head-to-head benchmark comparisons (12 out of 17), leveraging its newer Wildcat Lake architecture and superior single-threaded performance. However, the Core 5 120U strikes back decisively in specific multi-threaded and integer-heavy workloads, making the choice dependent on the primary use case. The data shows the Core 5 320 is the more versatile performer for most users, while the 120U offers a compelling alternative for tasks that scale with core count.

The Verdict

The Intel Core 5 320 is the recommended choice for users prioritizing responsiveness, single-threaded speed, and modern platform features. Its 12.7% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core, 9.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core, and 16.3% lead in PassMark single-thread tests demonstrate a clear advantage in everyday applications that rely on per-core performance. The 320 also dominates in specialized workloads, with a 107.5% advantage in PassMark find prime numbers and a 42.6% edge in extended instructions.

The Intel Core 5 120U is the pick for users running heavily threaded applications that can utilize its 10 cores and 12 threads. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 8.4%, Cinebench R23 multi-core by 6.9%, and shows a massive 38.2% lead in PassMark integer math. The 120U also leads in data compression (10.6%) and random string sorting (5.4%), making it suitable for file archiving and data processing tasks.

For a balanced mobile workload, the Core 5 320's 2.7% win in PassMark multi-thread and 30.3% advantage in physics simulations tip the scales. The 320's average benchmark score of 18023 is only 0.7% higher than the 120U's 17898, but the distribution of wins favors the newer part.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 320 is built on Wildcat Lake architecture with a 3 nm process node, while the Core 5 120U uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm node. This process advantage contributes to the 320's efficiency and per-core performance. The 320 features 6 cores and 6 threads with no hyper-threading, whereas the 120U offers 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid core configuration typical of Raptor Lake-U.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The 320 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The 120U provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The 120U's larger L3 cache (double the 320's) supports its multi-threaded workloads, while the 320's design focuses on lower latency per core.

Memory support diverges: the 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the 120U supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus (bandwidth not specified in the data). The 320 also features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, compared to the 120U's Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. PCIe lanes differ, with the 320 offering 6 Gen 4 lanes and the 120U offering 8 Gen 4 lanes.

The 320 uses Intel BGA 1516 socket and was released on 2026-04-15, while the 120U uses Intel BGA 1744 and launched on 2024-01-07. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the Core 5 320 is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 110 versus 53, a 107.5% advantage. This indicates significantly stronger per-core integer and mathematical processing capability. The 320 also excels in PassMark extended instructions (13262 vs 9299, +42.6%) and physics (1221 vs 937, +30.3%), suggesting better SIMD and simulation performance.

Single-threaded benchmarks uniformly favor the 320: Cinebench R15 (276 vs 245, +12.7%), Cinebench R20 (771 vs 755, +2.1%), Cinebench R23 (1926 vs 1756.5, +9.6%), and PassMark single-thread (4045 vs 3479, +16.3%). The 320 also wins PassMark floating point math by 17.8% (42440 vs 36026) and data encryption by 5.1% (10984 vs 10453).

The Core 5 120U's most significant victory is in PassMark integer math, scoring 52280 versus 32323, a 38.2% lead. This suggests the 120U's additional cores and threads are highly effective for integer-heavy computation. The 120U also wins data compression (166432 vs 148779, +10.6%), random string sorting (19060 vs 18038, +5.4%), and Cinebench R15 multi-core (1150.5 vs 1054, +8.4%).

Multi-core Cinebench results are split: the 120U wins R15 and R23 (-8.4% and -6.9% deltas for the 320), but the 320 wins R20 by 2.1% (5462 vs 5349). PassMark multi-thread goes to the 320 by 2.7% (15450 vs 15042).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core count: the 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the 120U has 10 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are close (1.50 GHz vs 1.40 GHz), but the 120U boosts higher at 5.00 GHz versus 4.60 GHz for the 320. Both have a 15 W TDP.

Cache differs as noted: L1 is 192 KB total on the 320 versus 80 KB per core on the 120U; L2 is 2.5 MB on the 320 versus 1.25 MB per core on the 120U; L3 is 6 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5/LPDDR5X on the 320 versus DDR4/DDR5 on the 120U, with single-channel versus dual-channel buses. The 320's memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s; the 120U's is not specified.

Integrated graphics differ: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) on the 320 versus Iris Xe Graphics 80EU on the 120U. PCIe lanes are 6 versus 8 (both Gen 4). The 320 has a launch MSRP of $340; the 120U has no listed launch MSRP. Release dates are 2026-04-15 for the 320 and 2024-01-07 for the 120U. Part numbers are SAE3H and SRM7P, respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 wins all single-thread benchmarks, with leads of 12.7% in Cinebench R15, 2.1% in Cinebench R20, 9.6% in Cinebench R23, and 16.3% in PassMark single-thread tests.

Q: Does the Core 5 120U offer better multi-threaded performance?

A: In some tests, yes. The 120U wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 8.4% and Cinebench R23 multi-core by 6.9%, but the 320 wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by 2.1% and PassMark multi-thread by 2.7%.

Q: What is the most significant benchmark difference between the two?

A: PassMark find prime numbers shows the largest gap, with the 320 scoring 110 versus 53 for the 120U, a 107.5% advantage. The 120U's biggest win is PassMark integer math at 52280 versus 32323, a 38.2% lead.

Q: How do their cache sizes compare?

A: The 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The 120U has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3, giving it double the L3 cache.

Q: Which processor is newer?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 was released on 2026-04-15, while the Intel Core 5 120U was released on 2024-01-07, making the 320 the newer part.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. The 120U supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus. The 320's bandwidth is listed at 59.7 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 320 is the winner for general productivity, office work, and web browsing due to its superior single-thread performance. The 16.3% lead in PassMark single-thread and 9.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core translate to snappier application responsiveness. It is also the clear choice for security and encryption tasks, winning data encryption by 5.1%, and for scientific or engineering simulations, as shown by the 30.3% physics advantage and 17.8% floating point math lead. The 320's 42.6% win in extended instructions makes it suitable for multimedia encoding and complex mathematical operations. Its 107.5% dominance in prime number finding suggests strong integer per-core efficiency, despite losing the broader integer math test.

The Intel Core 5 120U is the winner for heavily threaded workloads such as video rendering, 3D modeling, and software compilation that can leverage its 10 cores and 12 threads. The 38.2% lead in integer math and 10.6% win in data compression make it ideal for data processing, file archiving, and database operations. The 120U's 5.4% advantage in random string sorting indicates better performance in text processing and sorting algorithms. Its larger 12 MB L3 cache supports these multi-threaded tasks by reducing memory latency. The 120U also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 6.9%, a common proxy for content creation workloads.

For mixed usage, the Core 5 320's 2.7% win in PassMark multi-thread shows it can hold its own even in parallel tasks, despite having fewer cores. The 320's modern 3 nm process and newer architecture provide a more balanced overall package, while the 120U's higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz may help in bursty single-thread scenarios, though the 320 still wins those benchmarks. The 120U's dual-channel memory support could benefit memory-intensive applications, but the 320's higher bandwidth specification of 59.7 GB/s (when the 120U's is unspecified) suggests the 320 may have the edge in memory throughput. Ultimately, the 320 wins 12 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks and is the safer default recommendation.