Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core 7 150U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 7 150U wins 5.

Q: How do the two processors rank relative to all CPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 places in the 72nd percentile, while the Intel Core 7 150U places in the 71st percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 18023 and 17395, respectively.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark extended instructions, where the Intel Core 5 320 scores 13262 versus 8748, a 51.6% advantage.

Q: Where does the Intel Core 7 150U show its biggest lead?

A: The Core 7 150U leads by 30.2% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (8883 versus 6197) and by 36.7% in PassMark integer math (51057 versus 32323).

Q: Do the two processors use the same memory configuration?

A: No. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, while the Core 7 150U supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as Active in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core 7 150U come from different design families. The Core 5 320 is built on Wildcat Lake using a 3 nm process, while the Core 7 150U is a Raptor Lake-U part on a 10 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process gap is substantial: 3 nm versus 10 nm.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core 7 150U has 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with efficiency cores. This explains why the Core 7 150U tends to dominate in heavy multi-threaded loads despite the Core 5 320's newer process.

Cache layouts diverge as well. The Core 5 320 carries 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 150U lists 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 150U's larger L3 pool gives it more room for shared data across its extra cores.

Memory support differs. The Core 5 320 uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 7 150U uses DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded. The dual-channel interface on the older part could matter for memory-sensitive workloads, though the newer part's higher bandwidth per channel is notable.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core 7 150U provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are different as well: the Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units, while the Core 7 150U uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units.

Socket compatibility separates the two. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core 7 150U uses Intel BGA 1744. They are not interchangeable in a system design. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite tells a split story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 7 150U wins decisively: 1505.5 versus 1054, a 30% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, however, the Core 5 320 flips the result, scoring 5462 against 5248, a 4.1% edge. Then Cinebench R23 multi-core swings back to the Core 7 150U with 8883 versus 6197, a 30.2% margin. The pattern suggests workload scaling differences between the two designs rather than a consistent multi-core hierarchy.

Single-core results consistently favor the Core 5 320. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 276 versus 254, an 8.7% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the margin is 771 versus 740, or 4.2%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it is 1926 versus 1875.5, a 2.7% advantage. The newer Wildcat Lake core has a measurable single-thread edge across all three Cinebench versions.

PassMark results show the Core 5 320 winning most math and encryption tests. Data encryption goes to the Core 5 320 by 9.6% (10984 versus 10025). Extended instructions favor it by 51.6% (13262 versus 8748). Prime number finding is a 89.7% blowout in its favor, 110 versus 58. Floating point math is 23.4% ahead, 42440 versus 34405. Physics simulation goes to the Core 5 320 by 20.7%, 1221 versus 1012. PassMark multi-thread also goes to the Core 5 320, but narrowly: 15450 versus 14700, a 5.1% edge.

The Core 7 150U takes the remaining PassMark tests. Data compression favors it by 6.2%, 158622 versus 148779. Integer math is its largest passmark win at 36.7%, 51057 versus 32323. Random string sorting is nearly even, with the Core 7 150U ahead by 1.3%, 18269 versus 18038. Single-thread performance in PassMark, measured twice under two test names, goes to the Core 5 320 by 15.3%, 4045 versus 3508.

The win count of 12 to 5 in favor of the Core 5 320 reflects its dominance in single-thread and instruction-heavy workloads. The Core 7 150U's wins are concentrated in integer math, compression, and certain Cinebench multi-core runs.

Specification Differences

Process node: 3 nm for the Core 5 320, 10 nm for the Core 7 150U.

Cores and threads: 6 cores and 6 threads versus 10 cores and 12 threads.

Base clock: 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320, 1.80 GHz for the Core 7 150U.

Boost clock: 4.60 GHz versus 5.40 GHz.

Cache: 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, 6 MB shared L3 on the Core 5 320; 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, 12 MB shared L3 on the Core 7 150U.

Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 5 320; DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 7 150U.

Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel.

Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s recorded for the Core 5 320; none recorded for the Core 7 150U.

PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes versus Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units versus Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units.

Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 1744.

Release date: April 2026 for the Core 5 320, January 2024 for the Core 7 150U. The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340; the Core 7 150U has no recorded launch MSRP.

Part numbers differ: SAE3H for the Core 5 320, SRMYP for the Core 7 150U.

Both share the same TDP of 15 watts, no ECC memory support, no unlocked multiplier, and the mobile market segment.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in scenarios that favor single-thread speed, encryption, and specialized instruction execution. Its 8.7% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and 15.3% lead in PassMark single-thread indicate stronger per-core performance. The 51.6% advantage in extended instructions and 89.7% advantage in prime number finding suggest workloads that rely on modern instruction sets benefit heavily. Floating point math, physics simulation, and data encryption also sit in its column. The newer 3 nm process likely explains the per-clock efficiency gains, though the database does not directly measure clocks per watt.

The Intel Core 7 150U wins in workloads that scale with core count and larger shared cache. Its 30% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 30.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core point to heavy parallel rendering or compilation tasks. The 36.7% advantage in integer math and 6.2% lead in data compression align with productivity applications that churn through large arithmetic workloads. The dual-channel memory bus and 12 MB of L3 give it additional headroom for data-heavy tasks.

The split is not clean. The Core 5 320 wins PassMark multi-thread despite having fewer cores, which indicates that single-thread efficiency can carry aggregate throughput in some tests. The Core 7 150U loses Cinebench R20 multi-core even though it wins the other two Cinebench multi-core tests. The data suggests workload sensitivity matters more than raw core count.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two distinct profiles. The Intel Core 5 320 is the stronger single-thread performer and leads in most PassMark sub-tests, winning 12 of 17 comparisons. It also holds a higher average benchmark score, 18023 versus 17395, and a slightly higher percentile rank, 72 versus 71. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, with a delta of 0.2%, and it sits close to the Intel Core 5 120U and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT.

The Intel Core 7 150U is the multi-core specialist. Its 10 cores and 12 threads deliver decisive wins in Cinebench R15 and R23 multi-core, plus strong integer math and compression results. It also has a dual-channel memory bus and more L3 cache, which the data suggests helps in cache-heavy workloads. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 and AMD Ryzen 5 4600G, with deltas of 0.4% and -0.6%.

Which one to choose depends on the workload profile. The data points to the Core 5 320 for single-thread-bound applications, encryption, physics, and floating point math. It points to the Core 7 150U for parallel rendering, integer-heavy processing, and compression. The Core 5 320 is the newer design on a 3 nm node, while the Core 7 150U leverages more cores and a larger cache. Both are active mobile parts with equal 15 watt TDPs, so thermal envelopes do not separate them. The benchmark record, not the marketing positioning, should drive the selection.