Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core i3-13100 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits this comparison into two very distinct personalities. The Intel Core i3-13100 is the multi-core workhorse for sustained, heavily threaded workloads. The Intel Core 5 320 is the efficiency-focused mobile chip that dominates single-thread and lighter, bursty tasks.

Looking at the raw win count, the Core 5 320 takes 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its victories are concentrated in the PassMark suite, where it leads in data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and both single-thread tests. It also wins the Cinebench R15 single-core, R20 multi-core, and R20 single-core tests. The i3-13100, by contrast, wins only 4 benchmarks, but they are significant: Cinebench R15 multi-core, Cinebench R23 multi-core, PassMark data compression, and PassMark integer math.

The use-case split is clear. For users running Cinebench R23 multi-core, a proxy for long render jobs or heavy CPU computation, the i3-13100 is far superior with a 93.4% lead. For everyday responsiveness, office work, and single-threaded applications, the Core 5 320 is the better choice, as shown by its 14.5% lead in PassMark single-thread and 12.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Core 5 320 also excels in physics simulation and encryption, making it a stronger option for security-related tasks and light gaming physics.

The i3-13100 counters in integer math with a 27.8% lead, which is relevant for certain database and compilation workloads. Its data compression advantage of 8.5% also points to file archiving scenarios. In short, the i3-13100 is a desktop CPU built for sustained throughput, while the Core 5 320 is a mobile CPU optimized for efficiency and single-core speed.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i3-13100, with a score of 11986 versus 6197 for the Core 5 320, a 93.4% advantage.

Q: How does the Core 5 320 perform in single-threaded tasks?

A: It leads decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1926 versus 1692 for the i3-13100, a 12.1% lead. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4045 versus 3460, a 14.5% lead.

Q: Which chip wins in data encryption workloads?

A: The Core 5 320 wins PassMark data encryption with a score of 10984 versus 8049 for the i3-13100, a 26.7% margin.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The i3-13100 has an average benchmark score of 18380, while the Core 5 320 averages 18023. Both rank in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Are there any workloads where the i3-13100 is dramatically better?

A: Yes, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 93.4% lead. It also wins integer math by 27.8% and data compression by 8.5%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The i3-13100 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is Cinebench R23 multi-core. The i3-13100 scores 11986, nearly double the Core 5 320's 6197, translating to a 93.4% delta. This is the largest single gap in the dataset and highlights the i3's ability to sustain multi-threaded loads, likely due to its higher base clock of 3.40 GHz and 60W TDP versus the Core 5's 1.50 GHz base and 15W TDP.

However, the Core 5 320 dominates in Cinebench R15 single-core, scoring 276 versus 170 for the i3-13100, a 38.4% margin. This is the second-largest gap, showing the Core 5's superior single-thread efficiency. The Core 5 320 also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core (5462 versus 5034, a 7.8% lead) and R20 single-core (771 versus 710, a 7.9% lead).

In the PassMark suite, the Core 5 320 wins 8 out of 10 tests. Its biggest wins are in find prime numbers (110 versus 52, a 52.7% lead) and physics (1221 versus 870, a 28.7% lead). Floating point math also favors the Core 5 320 (42440 versus 32325, a 23.8% lead), as does data encryption (10984 versus 8049, a 26.7% lead). Extended instructions go to the Core 5 320 by 16.7% (13262 versus 11053), and random string sorting by 11.7% (18038 versus 15925). Multithread sees the Core 5 320 ahead by 11.2% (15450 versus 13726).

The i3-13100's PassMark wins are narrower but notable. Integer math goes to the i3 by 27.8% (41313 versus 32323), and data compression by 8.5% (161424 versus 148779). These results suggest the i3's Hyper-Threading (8 threads versus 6) helps in specific integer-heavy and compression tasks, but the Core 5 320's newer architecture and higher boost clock (4.60 GHz versus 4.50 GHz) win the majority of tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors target entirely different market segments, and the specs reflect that. The i3-13100 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, while the Core 5 320 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1516. The i3-13100 has 4 cores and 8 threads, whereas the Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning the i3 uses simultaneous multithreading while the Core 5 does not.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The i3-13100 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Core 5 320 has a much lower base of 1.50 GHz but a slightly higher boost of 4.60 GHz. Thermal design power is another major split: the i3-13100 is rated at 60W, while the Core 5 320 is rated at only 15W, confirming the mobile efficiency focus.

Memory support differs. The i3-13100 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only on a single-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The i3-13100 has no listed memory bandwidth figure in the data.

PCIe connectivity also differs: the i3-13100 uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 320 uses Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are different as well: the i3-13100 has UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 5 320 has Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe). The release dates are far apart, with the i3-13100 launching on 2023-01-03 and the Core 5 320 on 2026-04-15.

Architecture Differences

The architectures are generations apart. The i3-13100 is built on Intel's Raptor Lake architecture, codenamed Raptor Lake-S, using a 10 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The Core 5 320 uses a newer 3 nm process node, also from Intel's foundry, with the codename Wildcat Lake. This process shrink is a primary reason for the Core 5's efficiency and higher boost clock despite a much lower TDP.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The i3-13100 has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, an L2 of 1.25 MB per core, and a shared L3 of 12 MB. The Core 5 320 has a total L1 of 192 KB, an L2 of 2.5 MB, and a shared L3 of only 6 MB. Despite having fewer total threads, the Core 5's smaller L3 suggests a different design philosophy focused on low power and short data paths.

The die size is listed only for the i3-13100 at 163 mm²; no die size is recorded for the Core 5 320. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SRMBU for the i3-13100 and SAE3H for the Core 5 320. The Core 5 320's integrated graphics (Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores) represent a newer GPU generation than the i3's UHD Graphics 730, aligning with its mobile positioning.

The production status for both is Active, and both are from Intel. The i3-13100 has a launch MSRP of $134, while the Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340. These architectural differences explain the benchmark outcomes: the Core 5 320's newer 3 nm process and higher boost clock drive its single-thread and efficiency wins, while the i3-13100's higher base clock, larger L3 cache, and 8 threads drive its multi-core and integer-heavy victories.