Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core i3-14100F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between the two processors, with the Intel Core 5 320 winning 11 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks and the Intel Core i3-14100F winning 6. The margins, however, tell a more complex story than the raw win count.

The largest single victory belongs to the Intel Core i3-14100F in Cinebench R23 multicore, where it scores 13084 against 6197 for the Core 5 320, a delta of 52.6% in favor of the desktop part. This is the most decisive result in the entire comparison. The i3-14100F also wins Cinebench R15 multicore with 1318 versus 1054, a 20% advantage, and Cinebench R20 multicore with 5495 versus 5462, though that margin is only 0.6%.

The Core 5 320 counters with its own dominant performance in Cinebench R15 singlecore, scoring 276 against 186, a 48.4% lead. That is the second-largest margin in the dataset. In PassMark find prime numbers, the Core 5 320 scores 110 versus 61, an 80.3% advantage, the largest percentage delta of any benchmark in the comparison. PassMark floating point math also favors the Core 5 320 by 20%, with scores of 42440 and 35370.

Several benchmarks land very close. Cinebench R20 singlecore shows 771 for the Core 5 320 and 775 for the i3-14100F, a 0.5% edge for the desktop chip. PassMark multithread is nearly identical: 15450 for the Core 5 320 and 15420 for the i3-14100F, a 0.2% difference. These near-ties suggest that in certain workloads the architectural differences cancel out.

The Core 5 320 leads in PassMark data encryption by 23.1%, scoring 10984 against 8922, and in PassMark extended instructions by 10.7%, with 13262 versus 11984. The i3-14100F takes PassMark integer math decisively, 45357 versus 32323, a 28.7% gap, and PassMark data compression by 15.5%, 176106 versus 148779. PassMark random string sorting goes to the Core 5 320 by a slim 2.5% margin, 18038 versus 17596, while PassMark physics favors the Core 5 320 by 13.4%, 1221 versus 1077. PassMark single thread and singlethread both show 4045 for the Core 5 320 against 3778 for the i3-14100F, a 7.1% lead.

The average benchmark scores place the i3-14100F slightly ahead overall at 18519 versus 18023, a difference of about 2.7%. Both processors sit at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The nearest rival data places the Core 5 320 within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, the Intel Core 5 120U, the Intel Core i5-1334U, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT. The i3-14100F sits within 0.8% of the Intel Core i5-13420H, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE, the Intel Core i3-13100, and the Intel Core 7 360.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-14100F demonstrates its strength in sustained multicore rendering workloads. The Cinebench R23 multicore result of 13084 is more than double the Core 5 320 score of 6197, and the R15 multicore margin of 20% reinforces this pattern. Integer-heavy workloads also favor the desktop chip, as shown by the 28.7% lead in PassMark integer math and the 15.5% lead in data compression. These results indicate that applications which scale with thread count and raw integer throughput will favor the i3-14100F.

The Core 5 320 wins the single-core and latency-sensitive categories. Its Cinebench R15 singlecore score of 276 versus 186 represents a 48.4% advantage, and the Cinebench R23 singlecore margin of 4.3% confirms that this is not a one-off result. The PassMark single thread score of 4045 versus 3778, a 7.1% lead, adds further evidence. Prime number calculation shows an 80.3% advantage, floating point math a 20% advantage, and data encryption a 23.1% advantage. The Core 5 320 also leads in physics simulation by 13.4% and in extended instructions by 10.7%.

The near-ties in Cinebench R20 multicore, Cinebench R20 singlecore, and PassMark multithread indicate that neither processor dominates across every metric. The R20 multicore scores differ by only 33 points out of 5495, and the multithread scores are separated by just 30 points out of 15450. For workloads that resemble these tests, the choice between the two would have little measurable impact.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward selection based on workload type. The Intel Core i3-14100F is the choice for multicore rendering and integer-heavy tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 13084 is 52.6% higher than the Core 5 320, and its PassMark integer math score of 45357 is 28.7% higher. Users running Cinebench-style render workloads, data compression, or integer math will see measurable gains from the desktop chip.

The Intel Core 5 320 is the choice for single-threaded responsiveness, floating point math, encryption, and prime number calculations. Its 48.4% lead in Cinebench R15 singlecore and 80.3% lead in PassMark find prime numbers are substantial. The 20% advantage in floating point math and 23.1% advantage in data encryption add to its case for scientific and cryptographic workloads. The 7.1% single thread lead in PassMark also suggests snappier general desktop responsiveness.

Both processors share the same 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by only 496 points out of roughly 18000. The i3-14100F has the higher average at 18519, the Core 5 320 at 18023. Neither part is a clear overall winner; the selection depends entirely on which benchmark categories matter most for the intended use.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher Cinebench R23 multicore score?

A: The Intel Core i3-14100F scores 13084, which is 52.6% higher than the Intel Core 5 320 score of 6197.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R15?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 scores 276, which is 48.4% higher than the Intel Core i3-14100F score of 186.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the two processors are nearly identical?

A: Yes. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 5462 for the Core 5 320 and 5495 for the i3-14100F, a 0.6% difference. PassMark multithread shows 15450 versus 15420, a 0.2% difference. Cinebench R20 singlecore shows 771 versus 775, a 0.5% difference.

Q: Which processor has the better PassMark data encryption score?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 scores 10984, which is 23.1% higher than the Intel Core i3-14100F score of 8922.

Q: What is the largest percentage margin in any head-to-head benchmark?

A: PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core 5 320 scores 110 against 61 for the Intel Core i3-14100F, a difference of 80.3%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-14100F has an average benchmark score of 18519, while the Intel Core 5 320 has an average of 18023. Both sit at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core i3-14100F uses the Raptor Lake-R codename with a Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Core and thread configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The i3-14100F has 4 cores and 8 threads, meaning each core supports two threads. The desktop part compensates for fewer physical cores with simultaneous multithreading.

Cache layouts are organized differently. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB of L1 cache and 2.5 MB of L2 cache, with 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-14100F lists 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-14100F thus has double the shared L3 capacity.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The i3-14100F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database. The i3-14100F supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 320 does not.

Integrated graphics separate the two clearly. The Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The i3-14100F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the i3-14100F provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

Market positioning and sockets reflect their intended platforms. The Core 5 320 is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1516, while the i3-14100F is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700. The die size for the i3-14100F is 163 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Core 5 320.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost values. The Intel Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Intel Core i3-14100F has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The desktop part runs at a higher base frequency, while the boost frequencies are close.

Thermal design power is markedly different. The Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15, while the i3-14100F has a TDP of 58. The mobile part is designed for much lower power envelopes.

Core counts differ: 6 cores for the Core 5 320 versus 4 cores for the i3-14100F. Thread counts also differ: 6 threads for the Core 5 320 versus 8 threads for the i3-14100F. The i3-14100F has more threads despite fewer cores.

The process node is 3 nm for the Core 5 320 and 10 nm for the i3-14100F. L3 cache is 6 MB shared for the Core 5 320 and 12 MB shared for the i3-14100F. Memory channel configuration is single-channel for the Core 5 320 and dual-channel for the i3-14100F. ECC memory support is absent on the Core 5 320 and present on the i3-14100F. PCIe generation is Gen 4 for the Core 5 320 and Gen 5 for the i3-14100F, with 6 versus 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are present on the Core 5 320 as Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the i3-14100F has none. The release dates are 2026-04-15 for the Core 5 320 and 2024-01-07 for the i3-14100F. Both processors have locked multipliers. The part numbers are SAE3H for the Core 5 320 and SRMX2 for the i3-14100F. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 320 is $340, and the launch MSRP for the i3-14100F is $109.