Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

The Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core 9 273PQE occupy opposite ends of the performance spectrum, and the recorded benchmark data leaves no ambiguity about their relative standing. The Core 9 273PQE wins every single head-to-head test in the database, often by massive margins, while the Core 5 320 counters with far lower power demands and a much smaller physical footprint. This comparison is not about close competition; it is about confirming the scale of the gap between a low-power mobile chip and a high-end desktop processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 against the Core 5 320’s 6197. That is a delta of -84.2%, meaning the Core 5 320 delivers only about 15.8% of the Core 9 273PQE’s multi-threaded rendering performance. The gap is nearly as stark in Cinebench R20 multi-core, with the Core 9 273PQE at 16459 versus 5462, a -66.8% delta, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Core 9 273PQE posts 3950 against 1054, a -73.3% delta.

Single-core results narrow the gap considerably, though the Core 9 273PQE still holds a clear lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 5532 versus 1926, a -65.2% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2323 against 771, a -66.8% delta, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 557 against 276, a -50.4% delta. The PassMark single-thread test is the closest contest in the entire dataset: the Core 9 273PQE scores 4573 against 4045, a delta of only -11.5%. This indicates that while the Core 9 273PQE has a substantial architectural and clock advantage, the Core 5 320’s newer process node helps it remain somewhat competitive on lightly threaded workloads.

The PassMark suite reinforces the multi-core dominance. In integer math, the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629 against 32323, a -80.4% delta. Floating point math shows 125546 versus 42440, a -66.2% delta. Data compression is another blowout: 585752 versus 148779, a -74.6% delta. Data encryption shows 29636 versus 10984, a -62.9% delta. Extended instructions score 38743 versus 13262, a -65.8% delta. The multithread test gives 46107 versus 15450, a -66.5% delta. Physics scores 2754 versus 1221, a -55.7% delta, and random string sorting shows 53167 versus 18038, a -66.1% delta. Even the prime number test, where the Core 5 320 is least disadvantaged, favors the Core 9 273PQE at 198 versus 110, a -44.4% delta.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the Intel Core 9 273PQE is overwhelmingly faster in every measured workload. Its average benchmark score of 66099 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 320’s average of 18023 lands in the 72nd percentile. The Core 9 273PQE’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with delta values of 0.3% and -0.1% respectively, confirming it trades blows with some of the fastest consumer processors available. The Core 5 320, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core 5 120U, with deltas of 0.2% and 0.7%. That places it in the company of mid-range processors from several generations ago.

The Core 5 320 is not without purpose. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Core 9 273PQE’s 125 W, its 3 nm process node is far more advanced than the 10 nm node used by the Core 9 273PQE, and its BGA 1516 socket targets compact mobile systems. The Core 9 273PQE, with its Socket 1700, 12 cores, 24 threads, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache, is built for desktop workloads where power draw and physical size are secondary concerns. For anyone choosing between these two, the decision is driven entirely by the intended use case: the Core 9 273PQE for maximum throughput, the Core 5 320 for minimal power consumption in a portable chassis.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its 12 cores and 24 threads give it a 100% core count advantage and a 300% thread count advantage over the Core 5 320, which has 6 cores and 6 threads. That hardware difference translates directly into the multi-core scores, where the Core 9 273PQE is between 73.3% and 84.2% ahead depending on the test. Its 5.90 GHz boost clock, compared to 4.60 GHz on the Core 5 320, explains its single-core advantage, which ranges from 11.5% to 66.8% across the various single-thread tests.

The Core 5 320 wins in efficiency and platform integration. Its 3 nm process node, produced by Intel, allows it to operate at a 15 W TDP while still delivering a 4.60 GHz boost clock. Its Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores provides integrated graphics, as does the Core 9 273PQE’s UHD Graphics 770, but the Core 5 320’s mobile orientation means it is intended for systems where the CPU and platform must fit into a thin chassis. The Core 5 320 also supports single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, which is sufficient for its class, whereas the Core 9 273PQE uses dual-channel memory at 89.6 GB/s. The Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core 5 320, which may matter for certain workstation or server-adjacent use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, while the Intel Core 5 320 scores 18023. The Core 9 273PQE also ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 320.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 compared to 6197 for the Core 5 320, a delta of -84.2%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 16459 versus 5462, a -66.8% delta.

Q: Is the single-thread performance gap smaller?

A: Yes. The PassMark single-thread test shows the Core 9 273PQE at 4573 versus 4045, a delta of only -11.5%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a larger gap at 557 versus 276, a -50.4% delta.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 320 does not.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15 W. The Core 9 273PQE has a TDP of 125 W.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel manufacturing nodes and design families. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process, while the Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and a 10 nm process. The Core 5 320 belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, and the Core 9 273PQE belongs to the Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) generation. Both are manufactured by Intel, and both have active production status.

Cache layouts differ substantially. 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 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with a much larger 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 9 273PQE’s per-core L2 design scales with its 12 cores, giving it far more total cache capacity for demanding workloads.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory through a single-channel interface with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 through a dual-channel interface with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 9 273PQE also adds ECC memory support, which the Core 5 320 lacks.

Specification Differences

The Core 5 320 and Core 9 273PQE differ on nearly every core specification. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320 and 3.40 GHz for the Core 9 273PQE. Boost clocks are 4.60 GHz and 5.90 GHz respectively. TDP is 15 W for the Core 5 320 and 125 W for the Core 9 273PQE.

Sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket, while the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. PCIe support also differs: the Core 5 320 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 9 273PQE offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Memory bus width differs, with single-channel on the Core 5 320 and dual-channel on the Core 9 273PQE. The launch MSRP is $340 for the Core 5 320 and $589 for the Core 9 273PQE. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SAE3H for the Core 5 320 and SA4Q9 for the Core 9 273PQE.