Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H scores 11830 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to 6197 for the Intel Core 5 320. This gives the 210H a 90.9% advantage, the largest multi-core margin in the head-to-head data.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 320 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the 320 wins 6 out of 17 recorded benchmarks. These wins include Cinebench R15 single-core (276 vs 247, a 10.5% lead), Cinebench R23 single-core (1926 vs 1771, an 8% lead), PassMark single-thread (4045 vs 3539, a 12.5% lead), PassMark find prime numbers (110 vs 53, a 51.8% lead), and PassMark physics (1221 vs 1040, a 14.8% lead).

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

A: The Intel Core 5 210H has an average benchmark score of 24872, while the Intel Core 5 320 averages 18023. The 210H sits in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the 320 sits in the 72nd percentile.

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

A: For the 210H, the nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-13620H with a delta of -0.2%, followed by the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX at +0.2%. For the 320, the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is closest at +0.2%, with the Intel Core 5 120U at +0.7%.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz. Despite the lower boost, the 320 achieves higher single-core scores in several tests.

Q: What is the difference in process node between the two chips?

A: The 210H uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the 320 uses a 3 nm process. The 320 also features a newer architecture codename, Wildcat Lake, compared to Raptor Lake-H for the 210H.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design approaches within Intel's mobile lineup. The Intel Core 5 210H is built on the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-H, part of the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. It uses a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel. The chip features 8 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Intel Core 5 320 takes an entirely different path. It belongs to the Wildcat Lake generation, built on a 3 nm process node, also by Intel. This chip has 6 cores and 6 threads, which means no hyper-threading is present. The cache layout differs markedly: 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation is larger on the 320 (approximately 416 KB per core) than on the 210H (2 MB per core with 8 cores, though the exact per-core split is not specified).

Memory support separates the two as well. The 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but operates in a single-channel memory bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. This single-channel design likely constrains memory-intensive workloads compared to the 210H's dual-channel setup.

PCIe connectivity differs too. The 210H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes, while the 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are present on both: the 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units, while the 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Power characteristics diverge sharply. The 210H has a TDP of 45 watts, while the 320 has a TDP of 15 watts. This 30-watt difference explains the performance profile: the 210H is designed for higher sustained workloads, while the 320 targets efficiency. The 210H uses socket Intel BGA 1744, and the 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, making them physically incompatible.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between multi-core dominance for the 210H and single-core efficiency for the 320. Starting with Cinebench R15, the 210H scores 1757 in multi-core versus 1054 for the 320, a 66.7% advantage. In R15 single-core, the 320 reverses the result with 276 versus 247, a 10.5% lead.

Cinebench R20 shows a different pattern. The 210H wins multi-core with 6504 versus 5462, a 19.1% margin. Interestingly, the 210H also wins R20 single-core with 918 versus 771, also a 19.1% margin. This contradicts the R15 single-core result, suggesting the workload characteristics change between benchmark versions.

Cinebench R23 amplifies the multi-core gap. The 210H scores 11830, while the 320 manages 6197, a 90.9% difference. In R23 single-core, the 320 takes the win with 1926 versus 1771, an 8% lead. The R23 multi-core result is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head set.

PassMark tests show a mixed bag. In data compression, the 210H scores 217805 versus 148779, a 46.4% win. Data encryption favors the 210H with 12187 versus 10984, an 11% margin. Extended instructions are nearly tied: 13370 versus 13262, a 0.8% edge for the 210H.

The find prime numbers test delivers a surprise. The 320 scores 110, more than double the 210H's 53, a 51.8% advantage for the 320. This suggests the 320's architecture handles integer-heavy prime search far more efficiently per clock.

Floating-point math favors the 210H with 45057 versus 42440, a 6.2% margin. Integer math shows the largest PassMark gap: 61503 versus 32323, a 90.3% win for the 210H. Multithread performance gives the 210H an 18.1% edge (18252 versus 15450). Physics favors the 320 at 1221 versus 1040, a 14.8% lead. Random string sorting goes to the 210H with 23451 versus 18038, a 30% margin. Single-thread tests consistently favor the 320: 4045 versus 3539, a 12.5% lead in both PassMark single-thread and singlethread entries.

Overall, the 210H wins 11 benchmarks, and the 320 wins 6. The 210H's wins tend to be larger in magnitude, especially in multi-core and integer-heavy workloads, while the 320's wins are concentrated in single-core and specific math operations.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct usage profiles. The Intel Core 5 210H is the multi-core workhorse. It leads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, with margins ranging from 19.1% to 90.9%. Its PassMark integer math score of 61503 versus 32323 is decisive, and it leads in data compression, encryption, floating-point math, multithread, and random string sorting. For rendering, compilation, or any workload that scales across cores, the 210H is clearly superior.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins the single-core race. It leads in Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core, PassMark single-thread, find prime numbers, and physics. Its 3 nm process and higher per-core efficiency deliver better results in latency-sensitive tasks. The 320 also consumes 30 watts less, making it suitable for fanless or low-power designs, though the database does not record battery life or thermal data.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the 210H averages 24872, placing it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX and 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-13620H. The 320 averages 18023, sitting 0.2% above the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and 0.7% above the Intel Core 5 120U. The 210H's nearest rivals are all higher-tier processors, while the 320 competes with older desktop chips and lower-power mobile parts.

Neither chip is a universal winner. The 210H delivers roughly double the multi-core performance in some tests but loses single-core by up to 12.5%. The 320 offers superior single-thread responsiveness and a 51.8% lead in prime number finding but falls behind by 90.9% in multi-core Cinebench R23. The choice depends on workload priority, and the data supports both orientations.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every hardware specification. The 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: 2.20 GHz for the 210H versus 1.50 GHz for the 320. Boost clocks are closer: 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP differs by 30 watts: 45 watts for the 210H, 15 watts for the 320.

The socket changes from Intel BGA 1744 on the 210H to Intel BGA 1516 on the 320. The 210H uses Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename, while the 320 uses Wildcat Lake. Generation labels differ: Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) versus Core 5 (Wildcat Lake). Process nodes are 10 nm versus 3 nm, both from Intel.

Cache configurations are not directly comparable. The 210H lists 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The 320 lists 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support changes from DDR4 and DDR5 dual-channel on the 210H to DDR5 and LPDDR5X single-channel on the 320, with the 320 recording a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

PCIe generation and lanes differ: Gen 5 with 8 lanes on the 210H versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes on the 320. Integrated graphics change from Iris Xe Graphics 48EU to Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe). Release dates are 2024-12-17 for the 210H and 2026-04-15 for the 320. Launch MSRP values are $342 for the 210H and $340 for the 320. Part numbers are SRQ6RQ5MN and SAE3H, respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 210H wins in every Cinebench multi-core test, with the R23 margin of 90.9% being the standout result. It also wins PassMark data compression by 46.4%, data encryption by 11%, extended instructions by 0.8%, floating-point math by 6.2%, integer math by 90.3%, multithread by 18.1%, and random string sorting by 30%. These wins cover rendering, compression, encryption, and general parallel processing. The 210H's 8 cores and 12 threads, combined with its 45-watt TDP, deliver sustained multi-core throughput that the 320 cannot match.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in Cinebench R15 single-core by 10.5%, Cinebench R23 single-core by 8%, PassMark single-thread by 12.5%, PassMark find prime numbers by 51.8%, and PassMark physics by 14.8%. These wins indicate superior per-core efficiency, likely attributable to the 3 nm process and newer Wildcat Lake architecture. The find prime numbers result is particularly telling: the 320 achieves more than double the score despite having fewer cores and a lower boost clock. Physics performance also favors the 320, suggesting better handling of simulation workloads that rely on single-thread speed.

The single-thread results deserve attention. The 320 leads in both PassMark single-thread tests and two of three Cinebench single-core tests. The Cinebench R20 single-core result is the exception, where the 210H wins by 19.1%. This inconsistency suggests that the 320's advantage depends on specific instruction patterns, while the 210H's higher boost clock helps in some single-thread scenarios.

For general productivity with mixed workloads, the 210H's broader wins (11 versus 6) and larger average benchmark score (24872 versus 18023) make it the stronger all-around performer. The 320's wins are confined to specific math and physics operations, which may appeal to users running scientific or simulation software. The 320 also offers a 3 nm process and a 15-watt TDP, which are architectural advantages for power-constrained devices, though the database does not include thermal or battery measurements to quantify the real-world impact.