Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core 7 240H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel Core 7 240H, which takes 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core 5 320 wins 5 tests, but those victories are concentrated in specific single-threaded and integer workloads. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: the Core 7 240H averages 31,483 across all tests, while the Core 5 320 averages 18,023, a gap of roughly 75% in favor of the larger chip.

The largest margin of victory for the Core 7 240H appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 15,764 against the Core 5 320's 6,197. That is a 60.7% advantage. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15 multi-core, with the Core 7 240H scoring 2,360 versus 1,054, a 55.3% lead. In PassMark integer math, the Core 7 240H scores 80,396 against 32,323, a 59.8% difference. These are not marginal gaps; they indicate fundamentally different throughput capabilities in heavily threaded workloads.

The Core 5 320 does have its own wins, though they are narrower. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1,926 versus 1,719, a 12% advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 276 versus 249, a 10.8% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 4,045 versus 3,782, a 7% difference. The Core 5 320 also wins PassMark find prime numbers with 110 versus 102, a 7.8% edge.

The Core 7 240H's wins in the remaining tests range from moderate to large. It leads by 36.2% in both Cinebench R20 multi-core (8,562 vs 5,462) and Cinebench R20 single-core (1,208 vs 771). PassMark data compression shows 271,774 versus 148,779, a 45.3% margin. Data encryption shows 15,155 versus 10,984, a 27.5% lead. Extended instructions score 16,897 versus 13,262, a 21.5% difference. Floating point math delivers 58,905 versus 42,440, a 28% gap. Multithread scores 23,975 versus 15,450, a 35.6% margin. Physics shows 1,723 versus 1,221, a 29.1% lead. Random string sorting completes at 28,866 versus 18,038, a 37.5% difference.

The percentile rankings reflect this split. The Core 7 240H sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals listed in the database confirm the positioning: the Core 5 320 trades nearly evenly with AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (0.2% ahead), Intel Core 5 120U (0.7% ahead), Intel Core i5-1334U (0.7% behind), and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (0.7% ahead). The Core 7 240H matches Intel Core Ultra 3 205 (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX (0% delta), sits 0.1% behind Intel Core Ultra 5 225H, and 0.1% behind Intel Core i5-13500.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data breaks down into two distinct usage profiles. The Intel Core 7 240H owns every heavily threaded productivity test in the database. Video rendering, 3D modeling, data compression, encryption, physics simulation, and multi-threaded content creation workloads all show the same story: the Core 7 240H delivers between 21.5% and 60.7% more performance than the Core 5 320. For anyone running software that scales across cores, this is the decisive factor.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in light single-threaded workloads and a narrow set of integer tasks. Cinebench R23 single-core and R15 single-core both favor it, as does PassMark single-thread. The find prime numbers test also goes its way. These wins suggest the Core 5 320 has a higher per-core efficiency in certain short-duration tasks, but the margins are smaller, ranging from 7% to 12%. The Core 5 320 does not win any multi-threaded benchmark in the entire head-to-head set.

The data also shows the Core 7 240H wins the PassMark multithread test by 35.6%, reinforcing that its 10 cores and 16 threads produce a substantial throughput advantage over the Core 5 320's 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core 5 320's wins in single-thread tests do not translate into broader application performance, as the Core 7 240H also wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 36.2%, a result that complicates the single-thread narrative. The two chips split single-thread tests across different Cinebench versions and PassMark, so the Core 5 320's single-core edge is inconsistent rather than universal.

For integer-heavy workloads, the Core 7 240H dominates in integer math by 59.8%, while the Core 5 320 wins only the prime number search. Data encryption and extended instructions both favor the Core 7 240H, meaning the Core 5 320's single victory in that category is an outlier rather than a pattern.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has an average benchmark score of 31,483, compared to 18,023 for the Intel Core 5 320. The Core 7 240H also ranks at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 320 ranks at the 72nd percentile.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 320 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 5 of the 17 head-to-head tests: Cinebench R15 single-core, Cinebench R23 single-core, PassMark find prime numbers, PassMark single-thread, and PassMark singlethread. Its largest win is 12% in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two chips?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel Core 7 240H leads by 60.7%. The second largest is PassMark integer math at 59.8%, followed by Cinebench R15 multi-core at 55.3%.

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 240H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database shows it matches Intel Core Ultra 3 205 at 0% delta and AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 0% delta. It sits 0.1% behind Intel Core Ultra 5 225H and 0.1% behind Intel Core i5-13500.

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 320 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.2% ahead of AMD Ryzen 5 1600, 0.7% ahead of Intel Core 5 120U, 0.7% behind Intel Core i5-1334U, and 0.7% ahead of AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core 7 240H uses 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core 7 240H has no hyperthreading advantage listed, but its extra physical cores are the primary driver of its multi-threaded wins.

Clock speeds favor the Core 7 240H on both ends. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Thermal design power differs significantly: the Core 7 240H is rated at 45W, while the Core 5 320 is rated at 15W. This indicates the Core 7 240H is designed for higher sustained performance at the cost of more power draw.

Sockets differ as well. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744. They are not interchangeable. Memory support also diverges: the Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, though its bandwidth figure is not recorded in the database.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core 7 240H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. Both have ECC memory disabled and both have locked multipliers.

Release dates differ by over a year. The Core 7 240H was released on December 17, 2024. The Core 5 320 was released on April 15, 2026. The launch MSRP for the Core 7 240H is $502, and the launch MSRP for the Core 5 320 is $340.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 320 is built on Wildcat Lake, a 3 nm process node. The Core 7 240H uses Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-H, on a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 10 nm. This explains some of the Core 5 320's single-thread efficiency, despite its lower core count and lower clock speeds.

Cache configurations differ markedly. 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 240H 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 240H's larger L3 cache, combined with 10 cores, gives it a significant advantage in workloads that benefit from shared data residency.

The Core 7 240H is explicitly labeled as Raptor Lake architecture, while the Core 5 320's architecture field is null in the database, though its codename is Wildcat Lake. The Core 7 240H belongs to the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, while the Core 5 320 belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Core 7 240H's integrated graphics are Iris Xe with 64 execution units, a known quantity for Raptor Lake parts. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, reflecting the newer 3 nm design.

The Core 5 320's memory bus is single-channel, which limits memory bandwidth to 59.7 GB/s. The Core 7 240H has a dual-channel memory bus, which typically allows higher bandwidth, though the specific figure is not recorded. The Core 7 240H also supports DDR4 in addition to DDR5, giving it broader memory compatibility. The Core 5 320 only supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

PCIe generation differs: the Core 5 320 uses Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the Core 7 240H uses Gen 5 with 8 lanes. This gives the Core 7 240H more modern and faster connectivity for expansion devices, assuming the motherboard and peripherals support Gen 5.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion for most users: the Intel Core 7 240H is the stronger processor for anything multi-threaded. It wins 12 of 17 benchmarks, including every heavy productivity test. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 60.7% higher, its PassMark integer math is 59.8% higher, and its data compression is 45.3% higher. The 82nd percentile ranking versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 320 confirms that the Core 7 240H sits in a higher performance tier overall.

The Intel Core 5 320 is the right choice only for workloads where its specific single-thread wins matter and where the 15W thermal design power is a hard constraint. It wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 12% and Cinebench R15 single-core by 10.8%, and it has a 7% edge in PassMark single-thread. But those wins do not extend to all single-thread tests: the Core 7 240H wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 36.2%. The Core 5 320's 3 nm process node and Wildcat Lake design give it efficiency advantages, but the recorded data shows those advantages are inconsistent.

The launch MSRP difference is notable: $340 for the Core 5 320 versus $502 for the Core 7 240H. The Core 7 240H also demands a different socket (BGA 1744 vs BGA 1516) and a higher 45W power envelope. Builders targeting maximum multi-threaded performance in a mobile platform should select the Core 7 240H. Builders constrained by power consumption or seeking lighter single-thread workloads can consider the Core 5 320, but they should be aware that its multi-threaded performance trails the Core 7 240H by margins reaching 60%. The benchmark record is unambiguous: the Core 7 240H is the faster processor in the majority of measured scenarios.