Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core 7 150HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a complete benchmark profile for the Intel Core 5 320, while the Intel Core 7 150HL has no recorded benchmark scores. This makes a direct numeric comparison impossible. The Core 5 320 produces an average benchmark score of 18,023 across its tested workloads, placing it at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 150HL sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, meaning no performance data has been captured for it.

The Core 5 320 shows strong single-threaded capabilities. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,926 points and PassMark single-thread score of 4,045 indicate a capable core design. Multi-threaded results are more modest: Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 6,197 points, while PassMark multithread scores 15,450. The Core 5 320 delivers a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 5,462 and a single-core score of 771. In Cinebench R15, it records 1,054 multi-core and 276 single-core.

The Core 5 320's nearest rivals provide useful context. The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 scores an average of 17,994, which is 0.2% behind the Core 5 320. The Intel Core 5 120U averages 17,898, trailing by 0.7%. The Intel Core i5-1334U averages 18,154, leading the Core 5 320 by 0.7%. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT averages 17,891, also 0.7% behind. The Core 5 320 therefore sits in a tight cluster with these four processors, none of which separate themselves by more than a fraction of a percent.

The Core 7 150HL has no rival entries and no benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its 50th percentile placement indicates it has been classified but not measured. Any performance comparison between these two processors must rely on architectural and specification differences rather than recorded benchmark outcomes.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core 5 320 is the only one of these two processors with verified performance measurements. Its 72nd percentile standing means it outperforms the majority of CPUs in the database, and its average score of 18,023 places it in a competitive cluster with the Ryzen 5 1600, Core 5 120U, Core i5-1334U, and Ryzen 5 3600XT.

The Intel Core 7 150HL cannot be recommended on the basis of benchmark data, as none exists. Its 50th percentile rank reflects a lack of measurements, not a performance verdict. The Core 7 150HL may offer more cores, threads, and cache, but the database records no evidence of how those specifications translate into actual workload performance.

For users who rely on measured results, the Core 5 320 is the defensible choice. For users who prioritize raw specifications such as core count and cache capacity, the Core 7 150HL appears stronger on paper, but the absence of benchmark data leaves that conclusion unsupported by evidence.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core 7 150HL uses the Raptor Lake-PS codename, part of the Raptor Lake architecture, and is built on a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process node difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 10 nm.

The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading support. The Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid design with performance and efficiency cores. This core and thread disparity is the most significant architectural difference between the two.

Cache configurations differ considerably. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 150HL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 150HL's L3 cache is four times larger, but its per-core L1 and L2 allocations are structured differently.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core 7 150HL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core 5 320's graphics are a newer generation, but the Core 7 150HL's graphics have a higher execution unit count.

Specification Differences

The socket types differ. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile-oriented socket. The Core 7 150HL uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop platform. This is a fundamental compatibility difference.

Clock speeds differ. The Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core 7 150HL has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Core 7 150HL runs faster in both base and boost states.

Thermal design power differs. The Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core 7 150HL has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core 7 150HL consumes three times the thermal budget.

Memory support differs. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Core 7 150HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, and its memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core 7 150HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Both use PCIe Gen 4, but the Core 7 150HL offers two additional lanes.

The market segments differ. The Core 5 320 is classified as mobile. The Core 7 150HL is classified as desktop. Release dates also differ: the Core 5 320 was released on April 15, 2026, while the Core 7 150HL was released on April 7, 2024. The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340; the Core 7 150HL has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 150HL boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 7 150HL has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has recorded benchmark scores?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 320 has benchmark scores in the database. The Intel Core 7 150HL has no recorded benchmark results.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller process node?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core 7 150HL uses a 10 nm process node.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel Core 7 150HL has a TDP of 45 watts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in every measured benchmark category, but only because the Core 7 150HL has no recorded scores. The Core 5 320's single-thread performance is its strongest asset. A Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,926 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,045 indicate excellent responsiveness for lightly threaded workloads. Its 72nd percentile rank against all CPUs confirms that it outperforms the majority of processors in the database.

The Core 5 320 also wins on power efficiency. Its 15 watt TDP versus the Core 7 150HL's 45 watt TDP makes it the clear choice for thermally constrained systems. The 3 nm process node supports this efficiency advantage. The Core 5 320 is a mobile processor, so its design targets battery-powered operation.

The Core 7 150HL wins on raw specification counts. It has more than double the cores, more than triple the threads, four times the L3 cache, a higher base clock, a higher boost clock, dual-channel memory support, and more PCIe lanes. Its desktop socket and 45 watt TDP indicate it is designed for sustained performance in a desktop chassis rather than power-constrained mobile use.

For single-threaded tasks, data compression, encryption, and general productivity workloads, the Core 5 320's measured results show it performs competitively against its nearest rivals. Its PassMark data compression score of 148,779 and data encryption score of 10,984 demonstrate strong throughput in those specific operations. Its floating point math score of 42,440 and integer math score of 32,323 indicate balanced arithmetic capability.

For multi-threaded workloads such as video rendering, compilation, or heavy multitasking, the Core 7 150HL's 14 cores and 20 threads suggest it should hold an advantage, but no benchmark data confirms this. The Core 5 320's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6,197 is its lowest relative standing among its benchmark results, indicating that its 6-core, 6-thread configuration is a limiting factor in highly parallel workloads.

The Core 5 320's nearest rival comparisons show a tight grouping. It sits 0.2% above the Ryzen 5 1600, 0.7% above the Core 5 120U, 0.7% below the Core i5-1334U, and 0.7% above the Ryzen 5 3600XT. These deltas are small enough that real-world differences would be minimal. The Core 5 320 is therefore neither a standout nor a laggard within its immediate competitive set.

The Core 7 150HL's lack of benchmark data means it cannot be placed in any performance hierarchy. Its 50th percentile rank is a placeholder value, not a measurement. The database records no wins for either processor in direct head-to-head benchmarks, as none exist.

For mobile users needing verified performance with low power draw, the Core 5 320 is the only choice supported by data. For desktop builders who prioritize core count, cache size, and raw clock speeds, the Core 7 150HL offers a compelling specification sheet, but its actual performance remains unverified. The Core 5 320's measured results and 72nd percentile standing give it the edge in any evidence-based comparison.