Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance advantage for the Intel Core 5 220H in multi-threaded workloads, while the Intel Core 5 320 counters with meaningful single-thread wins. Across 17 recorded comparisons, the 220H takes 12 wins, with the 320 claiming 5.

The largest margin belongs to the 220H in PassMark integer math, where it scores 73555 against 32323, a delta of 127.6%. That result indicates a massive throughput advantage in integer-heavy processing. Cinebench R23 multicore follows closely, with the 220H delivering 11198 versus 6197, a lead of 80.7%. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 74.1% gap (1835 versus 1054), and PassMark data compression favors the 220H by 66.6% (247921 versus 148779). Random string sorting also goes strongly to the 220H, 28438 versus 18038, a 57.7% advantage.

The 220H extends its lead across several other multi-thread tests. Cinebench R20 multicore comes in at 7812 versus 5462, a 43% delta. PassMark multithread shows 21884 versus 15450, a 41.6% edge. Data encryption favors the 220H by 38.5% (15216 versus 10984). Floating point math goes to the 220H by 21.8% (51671 versus 42440), and physics testing shows a 21% advantage (1478 versus 1221). Extended instructions favor the 220H by a more modest 10.4% (14642 versus 13262). Cinebench R20 singlecore also goes to the 220H, 1102 versus 771, a 42.9% margin.

The 320 wins the single-thread comparisons. PassMark single thread shows 4045 versus 3405, a 15.8% advantage for the 320. Cinebench R23 singlecore goes to the 320 at 1926 versus 1853, a 3.8% edge. Cinebench R15 singlecore also favors the 320, 276 versus 262, a 5.1% gap. PassMark find prime numbers is the only other 320 win, at 110 versus 82, a 25.5% advantage.

The average benchmark score reflects this split: the 220H averages 28574 across all recorded tests, while the 320 averages 18023. The 220H sits at the 80th percentile among all CPUs in the database, versus the 72nd percentile for the 320.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H dominates multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore it scores 11198 versus 6197, an 80.7% lead. PassMark multithread shows 21884 versus 15450, and Cinebench R20 multicore shows 7812 versus 5462.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 wins every single-thread comparison. PassMark single thread shows 4045 versus 3405, a 15.8% advantage. Cinebench R23 singlecore goes 1926 versus 1853, and Cinebench R15 singlecore goes 276 versus 262.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth and bus width?

A: The 320 supports single-channel memory with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the 220H uses dual-channel memory but has no bandwidth figure recorded in the database. The 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5; the 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. The 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The 220H also has a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.60 GHz.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The 320 is built on a 3 nm process, while the 220H uses a 10 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: How do the integrated graphics differ?

A: The 220H integrates Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The 320 integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families with distinct designs. The Intel Core 5 220H is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. It uses a 10 nm process node. The 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, built on a 3 nm process.

The 220H provides 12 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with efficiency cores. The 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, which means no hyper-threading support and a purely performance-oriented layout at lower core count. Cache structures differ substantially. The 220H has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3.

Memory architecture differs as well. The 220H supports dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5. The 320 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also differs: the 220H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes, while the 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

The sockets differ: the 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, the 320 uses Intel BGA 1516. Integrated graphics represent two generations: the 220H has Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, the 320 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The 320 also has a lower TDP of 15 watts versus 45 watts for the 220H.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the Intel Core 5 220H is the stronger processor for multi-threaded and compute-heavy tasks, while the Intel Core 5 320 offers superior single-thread responsiveness with substantially lower power draw. The 220H wins 12 of 17 benchmark comparisons, and its average benchmark score of 28574 versus 18023 places it in a higher performance tier, at the 80th percentile versus the 72nd.

For workloads that scale with cores and threads, the 220H is the obvious choice. Its 12 cores and 16 threads deliver leads of 80.7% in Cinebench R23 multicore and 127.6% in integer math, numbers that indicate large gains in rendering, compilation, data processing, and any parallel workload. The 320 cannot approach these results despite its smaller process node.

For single-thread performance, the 320 leads by 15.8% in PassMark single thread and 5.1% in Cinebench R15 singlecore. That makes it preferable for lightly threaded applications where per-core speed matters. Its 3 nm process and 15 watt TDP also suggest lower power operation, though the database records no direct efficiency metric.

The 220H also uses dual-channel memory and supports DDR4 alongside DDR5, which may offer platform flexibility. The 320 uses single-channel memory but adds LPDDR5X support and a higher memory bandwidth figure in the database. Both are active production parts, with the 220H released in December 2024 and the 320 scheduled for April 2026.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

• Cores: 12 (220H) versus 6 (320)
• Threads: 16 (220H) versus 6 (320)
• Base clock: 2.70 GHz (220H) versus 1.50 GHz (320)
• Boost clock: 4.90 GHz (220H) versus 4.60 GHz (320)
• TDP: 45 W (220H) versus 15 W (320)
• Socket: Intel BGA 1744 (220H) versus Intel BGA 1516 (320)
• Codename: Raptor Lake-H (220H) versus Wildcat Lake (320)
• Generation: Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) versus Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)
• Process node: 10 nm (220H) versus 3 nm (320)
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (220H) versus 192 KB (320)
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (220H) versus 2.5 MB (320)
• L3 cache: 18 MB shared (220H) versus 6 MB shared (320)
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 (220H) versus DDR5, LPDDR5X (320)
• Memory bus: Dual-channel (220H) versus Single-channel (320)
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded (220H) versus 59.7 GB/s (320)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 8 lanes (220H) versus Gen 4, 6 lanes (320)
• Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU (220H) versus Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) (320)
• Release date: 2024-12-17 (220H) versus 2026-04-15 (320)
• Launch MSRP: $342 (220H) versus $340 (320)
• Part number: SRQ6SQ5MM (220H) versus SAE3H (320)

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 220H wins in all multi-threaded benchmark categories. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore all go to the 220H, with deltas ranging from 43% to 80.7%. PassMark multithread, integer math, floating point math, data compression, data encryption, random string sorting, physics, and extended instructions all favor the 220H. The largest single deltas are integer math (127.6%), Cinebench R23 multicore (80.7%), and Cinebench R15 multicore (74.1%). This processor suits rendering, video encoding, scientific computing, and any workload that uses many threads.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in single-thread tests. PassMark single thread shows a 15.8% advantage, Cinebench R23 singlecore a 3.8% edge, and Cinebench R15 singlecore a 5.1% lead. It also wins PassMark find prime numbers by 25.5%. These results indicate that the 320 is better for interactive workloads, single-threaded applications, and tasks where per-core frequency and responsiveness matter more than core count. Its lower TDP of 15 watts also positions it for power-sensitive mobile designs, although the database does not record efficiency benchmarks.

The 220H has the higher average benchmark score (28574 versus 18023) and the higher percentile rank (80th versus 72nd). The 320 offers the newer 3 nm process, LPDDR5X memory support, and a higher recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The 220H counters with dual-channel memory, more PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and a larger L3 cache. Each processor wins where its architecture is strongest: the 220H for throughput, the 320 for single-thread speed and lower power draw.