Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents a completely one-sided comparison. The Intel Core 5 221E wins all 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 320 secures zero victories. This is not a close contest by any measure. The 221E dominates across every category, from multi-threaded rendering to single-core responsiveness.

The largest gaps appear in heavily parallel workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the 221E at 25933 against 6197 for the 320, a 318.5% advantage. PassMark integer math follows closely, with the 221E scoring 117813 versus 32323, a 264.5% difference. These results indicate that any workload scaling across cores will heavily favor the desktop part.

Data compression and random string sorting also show massive leads for the 221E. The compression test records 324285 versus 148779, a 118% delta. Random string sorting shows 37686 against 18038, a 108.9% gap. Encryption, floating point math, and physics tests all show advantages between 74.8% and 86.2% for the 221E.

The single-thread picture is closer but still favors the 221E. PassMark single thread scores 4147 versus 4045, a modest 2.5% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3661 against 1926, a 90.1% advantage. The variance between these single-thread results suggests the 221E has significantly higher peak clocks while the architecture differences affect different instruction paths.

The 320 does not win anywhere. Even its closest result, PassMark single thread, falls short by 2.5%. The database records the 221E with a 87th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the 320 sits at the 72nd percentile. Average benchmark scores confirm the gap: 40144 for the 221E versus 18023 for the 320.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families and target different segments. The 221E uses the Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, while the 320 uses Wildcat Lake on a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process difference is substantial.

Core counts differ dramatically. The 221E provides 14 cores and 20 threads. The 320 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it lacks hyperthreading entirely. This partly explains the massive multi-threaded gaps, as the 221E has more than double the cores and over triple the threads.

Clock speeds also favor the 221E. It runs at a 2.70 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.20 GHz. The 320 runs at 1.50 GHz base and boosts to 4.60 GHz. The 221E has nearly double the base frequency and a 0.60 GHz higher boost ceiling.

Cache configurations reflect the different design goals. The 221E uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The 320 uses 192 KB L1 total, 2.5 MB L2 total, and 6 MB shared L3. The 221E offers substantially more cache overall, which supports its higher core count.

Memory support diverges clearly. The 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The 221E also supports ECC memory while the 320 does not.

PCIe capabilities favor the 221E, which provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well, with the 221E using UHD Graphics 730 and the 320 using Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

The 221E targets the desktop segment with an Intel Socket 1700 package. The 320 targets mobile with an Intel BGA 1516 socket. The 221E has a 65 W TDP versus 15 W for the 320. The 221E measures 257 mm² die size, while the 320 has no recorded die size. Release dates differ, with the 221E launching earlier and the 320 later.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the most extreme deltas. R15 multi-core records 2613 for the 221E versus 1054 for the 320, a 147.9% lead. R15 single-core shows 368 versus 276, a 33.3% lead. R20 multi-core records 10891 versus 5462, a 99.4% lead, and R20 single-core shows the same 99.4% delta with 1537 versus 771. R23 multi-core delivers the largest gap in the entire comparison at 318.5%, with 25933 versus 6197. R23 single-core shows 3661 versus 1926, a 90.1% lead.

PassMark integer math shows the second-largest gap. The 221E scores 117813 while the 320 scores 32323, a 264.5% difference. This test benefits heavily from the 221E's additional cores and threads. Data compression follows with 324285 versus 148779, a 118% lead. Random string sorting shows 37686 versus 18038, a 108.9% advantage.

Multi-threaded PassMark results show 30510 for the 221E versus 15450 for the 320, a 97.5% lead. Floating point math records 79028 versus 42440, an 86.2% advantage. Physics testing shows 2230 versus 1221, an 82.6% lead. Encryption delivers 19205 versus 10984, a 74.8% gap. Extended instructions show 18216 versus 13262, a 37.4% lead. Prime number finding records 173 versus 110, a 57.3% advantage.

The closest margin appears in PassMark single thread, where the 221E leads by only 2.5%, scoring 4147 versus 4045. This suggests that despite the architectural and clock differences, the 320's newer 3 nm process allows competitive single-thread performance in certain workloads. However, even this narrow gap favors the 221E.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E wins every multi-core test. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 25933 versus 6197, a 318.5% advantage. PassMark multi-thread records 30510 versus 15450, a 97.5% lead.

Q: How do single-core scores compare?

A: The 221E leads in all single-core tests. PassMark single thread shows 4147 versus 4045, a 2.5% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core records 3661 versus 1926, a 90.1% gap.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading support.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The 221E supports ECC memory. The 320 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with single-channel memory and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the TDP ratings compare?

A: The 221E has a 65 W TDP. The 320 has a 15 W TDP, reflecting its mobile design target.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core 5 221E for any performance-focused application. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests with no exceptions. The 221E delivers 318.5% higher multi-core rendering scores, 264.5% higher integer math throughput, and 118% better data compression. Its 87th percentile ranking versus the 320's 72nd percentile confirms the overall performance hierarchy.

The 221E suits desktop workloads that benefit from many cores, high clocks, and large cache. Its 14 cores, 20 threads, 5.20 GHz boost, and 24 MB L3 cache provide substantial parallel processing capability. The dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support make it appropriate for memory-sensitive tasks. Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes offers modern expansion bandwidth.

The 320 targets mobile usage with its 15 W TDP and BGA 1516 socket. Its 3 nm process enables a smaller power footprint, but the performance cost is severe. The 320's single-thread PassMark score of 4045 comes within 2.5% of the 221E, showing that its newer architecture provides decent per-clock efficiency. However, the 6-core, 6-thread configuration with 6 MB L3 cache and single-channel memory limits its throughput in any parallel workload.

The 320 does have advantages in power efficiency and integrated graphics, using Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores versus UHD Graphics 730. Its LPDDR5X memory support suits low-power mobile designs. But the recorded benchmarks show no workload where the 320 outperforms the 221E.

For users prioritizing raw performance, the 221E is the clear choice from the measured data. For mobile applications where power consumption matters most, the 320 offers a lower TDP but sacrifices significant performance. The benchmark database does not record any scenario where the 320 wins.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. The 221E uses 14 cores and 20 threads, while the 320 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz versus 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP is 65 W versus 15 W.

Socket types differ completely. The 221E uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop. The 320 uses Intel BGA 1516 for mobile. Process nodes are 10 nm for the 221E and 3 nm for the 320. Die size is 257 mm² for the 221E, with no recorded die size for the 320.

Cache layouts differ in structure and size. The 221E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The 320 has 192 KB L1 total, 2.5 MB L2 total, and 6 MB shared L3.

Memory support varies significantly. The 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with single-channel memory and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. ECC support exists only on the 221E.

PCIe generations and lane counts differ. The 221E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 on the 221E and Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores on the 320.

Market segments are desktop for the 221E and mobile for the 320. Both are active production parts. The 221E has a recorded die size of 257 mm², while the 320 has none. Memory bus widths are dual-channel for the 221E and single-channel for the 320. The 221E launches earlier with a 65 W power envelope, while the 320 launches later with a 15 W envelope.