Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core 7 250H Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the Intel Core 7 250H as the clear performance leader over the Intel Core 5 320. Out of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core 7 250H wins 16, while the Core 5 320 takes only a single victory. The average benchmark score for the Core 7 250H is 35728, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 5 320 averages 18023 and sits in the 72nd percentile.

The Core 7 250H is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand high multi-threaded throughput, such as rendering, video encoding, data compression, and integer-heavy computation. Its 14 cores and 20 threads provide a substantial parallel processing advantage. The Core 5 320, with 6 cores and 6 threads, is suited for lighter tasks where power efficiency and a smaller footprint take priority, though benchmark results show it falls behind in nearly every measured category.

The data indicates that the Core 5 320 should be selected only when the workload is dominated by prime number finding, the sole test it wins, or when the system design requires a 15 W TDP processor with a 3 nm process node. For any other use case, the Core 7 250H delivers significantly higher scores, particularly in multi-core scenarios where its advantage ranges from roughly 44% to 67% depending on the specific test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct Intel design lineages. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Core 7 250H uses the Raptor Lake-H codename with a 10 nm process node. The Core 7 250H is part of the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, whereas the Core 5 320 belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 5 320 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core 7 250H provides 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid configuration with performance and efficiency cores. This structural difference explains much of the multi-core performance gap.

Cache hierarchies also vary. The Core 5 320 carries 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 250H reports 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The larger shared L3 on the Core 7 250H supports its higher thread count and more demanding workloads.

Memory support and bus width differ. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 7 250H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus; no bandwidth figure is recorded for it. The dual-channel configuration gives the Core 7 250H a memory throughput advantage in practice.

PCIe capabilities differ. The Core 5 320 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core 7 250H uses Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 320 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core 7 250H has Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units.

Socket compatibility is not shared. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core 7 250H uses Intel BGA 1744. Production status is Active for both, but release dates differ, with the Core 7 250H released in December 2024 and the Core 5 320 in April 2026. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 320 is $340, and for the Core 7 250H it is $502.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 7 250H scores 1931 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Core 5 320 scores 1926. The Core 7 250H wins by 0.3%.

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Core 7 250H wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The Core 5 320 wins only 1, specifically the Passmark find prime numbers test.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 7 250H scores 16561 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, versus 6197 for the Core 5 320. The Core 7 250H leads by 62.6%.

Q: What process nodes do these processors use?

A: The Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process node. The Core 7 250H uses a 10 nm process node.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. The Core 7 250H supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the recorded data.

| Field | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core 7 250H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 14 |

| Threads | 6 | 20 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-H |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-12-17 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | $502 |

| Part number | SAE3H | SRQ6UQ5MK |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The multi-core Cinebench results show the largest gaps. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 7 250H scores 3147 versus 1054 for the Core 5 320, a 66.5% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 9697 versus 5462, a 43.7% advantage. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 16561 versus 6197, a 62.6% gap. These results confirm that the Core 7 250H delivers roughly two to three times the multi-threaded rendering performance.

Single-core results are much closer. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 7 250H scores 298 versus 276, a 7.4% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1368 versus 771, a 43.6% advantage for the Core 7 250H. Cinebench R23 single-core narrows to 1931 versus 1926, a marginal 0.3% difference. The Passmark single-thread test shows 4148 versus 4045, a 2.5% lead for the Core 7 250H.

Passmark integer math shows the largest percentage gap of all tests. The Core 7 250H scores 99100, while the Core 5 320 scores 32323, a 67.4% difference. Data compression follows a similar pattern: 303269 versus 148779, a 50.9% gap. Random string sorting shows 34136 versus 18038, a 47.2% difference. Multithread results show 27030 versus 15450, a 42.8% gap.

The Core 7 250H also leads in floating-point math with 65094 versus 42440, a 34.8% advantage. Physics scores favor the Core 7 250H at 1824 versus 1221, a 33.1% lead. Data encryption shows 18206 versus 10984, a 39.7% gap. Extended instructions show 17318 versus 13262, a 23.4% difference.

The single Core 5 320 victory comes in the Passmark find prime numbers test. The Core 5 320 scores 110, while the Core 7 250H scores 106, giving the Core 5 320 a 3.8% advantage. This is the only recorded test where the Core 5 320 outperforms the Core 7 250H.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 250H is the dominant processor in almost every measured workload. Its wins span rendering, compression, encryption, sorting, physics, floating-point math, integer math, and multithreaded tasks. The data shows that any application that can utilize multiple cores will benefit substantially from the Core 7 250H. The 14-core, 20-thread configuration, combined with 24 MB of shared L3 and dual-channel memory, drives these results.

The Core 5 320 wins only in prime number finding. This specific workload, which relies on efficient single-core integer operations without heavy memory traffic, favors the newer 3 nm process node and the Wildcat Lake architecture. The 3.8% margin is small, but it is a consistent result in the recorded data.

For mobile systems where power consumption is a primary constraint, the Core 5 320 has the advantage of a 15 W TDP versus 45 W for the Core 7 250H. The 3 nm process node suggests better power efficiency per operation. However, the benchmark data does not include any power efficiency measurements, so the trade-off is purely architectural.

The Core 7 250H also holds the single-core lead in most tests, though the margins are narrow in Cinebench R23 and Passmark single-thread. This indicates that the Core 7 250H is not merely a multi-core workhorse but also a competitive single-thread performer. The boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to 4.60 GHz for the Core 5 320, supports this observation.

In summary, the Core 7 250H is the processor of choice for demanding mobile workloads that require high throughput across many threads. The Core 5 320 is a lower-power alternative with a single niche victory in prime number finding, making it suitable only for scenarios where power limits are strict and multi-core performance is not a priority. The recorded data provides no evidence that the Core 5 320 can compete with the Core 7 250H in mainstream productivity or content creation tasks.