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

The Intel Core i3-14100T and Intel Core 5 320 are two processors that land in almost the same overall position in the database, yet get there by opposite routes. The i3-14100T is a desktop Raptor Lake Refresh part with 4 cores and 8 threads, a 35 W TDP, and an average benchmark score of 17648, placing it in the 71st percentile of all recorded CPUs. The Core 5 320 is a mobile Wildcat Lake chip with 6 cores and 6 threads, a 15 W TDP, and an average score of 18023, putting it in the 72nd percentile. The head-to-head record is lopsided on paper: 13 wins for the Core 5 320 against 4 for the i3-14100T. But the four wins the i3 does take include the largest gap in the entire comparison, which is why the picture deserves a closer look.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 320 owns responsiveness. Every single-threaded test in the database favors it: Cinebench R15 single-core (276 versus 165, a 40.2 percent gap), Cinebench R20 single-core (771 versus 688), Cinebench R23 single-core (1926 versus 1639), Passmark single thread (4045 versus 3498), and Passmark physics (1221 versus 973). It also wins several per-core throughput tests that reward per-cycle efficiency, including data encryption (10984 versus 7881), extended instructions (13262 versus 10414), floating point math (42440 versus 31379), find prime numbers (110 versus 56), and string sorting (18038 versus 15579). For workloads that lean on one fast core at a time, such as everyday application launches, web browsing, and many office tasks, the recorded data consistently favors the Core 5 320.

The i3-14100T owns sustained multi-threaded throughput, at least in the heaviest render test. Its 11612 in Cinebench R23 multi-core beats the Core 5 320's 6197 by 87.4 percent, by far the largest margin in either direction across all 17 recorded tests. It also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (1170 versus 1054, an 11 percent edge), data compression (152636 versus 148779), and integer math (40292 versus 32323, a 24.7 percent advantage). The pattern is clear: when a workload scales across many threads for a long stretch, the desktop part's 8 threads and higher power budget hold up, while in the shorter Cinebench R20 multi-core run the Core 5 320 actually comes out ahead (5462 versus 4877). That inversion between R20 and R23 suggests the 15 W mobile chip delivers strong burst throughput but falls behind once thermals become the limiting factor.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from very different lineages. The i3-14100T is a Raptor Lake-R design on Intel's 10 nm process, with a 163 mm² die, 4 performance-oriented cores supporting 8 threads, and a hybrid-free configuration typical of the Core i3 tier. Its cache layout is deep: 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, plus 12 MB of shared L3.

The Core 5 320 is a Wildcat Lake design on a 3 nm Intel process, a much newer node generation. It carries 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading, with 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The smaller L3 pool is one plausible reason its long-duration multi-core scores collapse while short bursts stay strong. Platform connectivity also diverges sharply: the i3 offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes and dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 support, while the Core 5 320 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X, and a stated memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 5 320 does pair with newer integrated graphics, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, versus the UHD Graphics 730 on the i3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Walking through the Cinebench data first: the Core 5 320 takes single-core in every generation of the test, with the R15 gap of 40.2 percent gradually narrowing to 14.9 percent by R23. In multi-core, the results split by test duration. The Core 5 320 wins R20 multi-core by 10.7 percent, but the i3-14100T wins R15 multi-core by 11 percent and demolishes R23 multi-core by 87.4 percent. The R23 result is the defining data point of this comparison: 11612 points versus 6197 points in the most thread-intensive and thermally demanding of the three Cinebench runs.

The Passmark suite tells a similar split story. Single thread goes to the Core 5 320 by 13.5 percent (4045 versus 3498), and the overall Passmark multithread score also favors it, 15450 versus 13662, an 11.6 percent edge. That overall score includes the per-core subtests where the Core 5 320 dominates: prime finding by 49.1 percent, encryption by 28.3 percent, floating point by 26.1 percent, extended instructions by 21.5 percent, physics by 20.3 percent, and string sorting by 13.6 percent. The i3 counters in integer math by 24.7 percent and data compression by 2.6 percent. Notably, the two chips sit in nearly identical competitive neighborhoods: the i3-14100T's nearest rivals include the Core i3-13100F and Core i7-1255U, both within a fraction of a percent of its average score, while the Core 5 320 measures against the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, Core 5 120U, Core i5-1334U, and Ryzen 5 3600XT, all within roughly 0.7 percent. Neither chip separates itself dramatically from its class, but within this matchup they win different games.

Specification Differences

• Segment and socket: Desktop on Intel Socket 1700 (i3-14100T, part number SRMX0) versus mobile on Intel BGA 1516 (Core 5 320, part number SAE3H), meaning the mobile chip is soldered with no socket upgrade path.
• Cores and threads: 4 cores / 8 threads versus 6 cores / 6 threads.
• Clocks: 2.70 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost for the i3, against 1.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost for the Core 5 320.
• TDP: 35 W versus 15 W.
• Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm, both fabbed by Intel.
• Cache: 12 MB shared L3 with 1.25 MB L2 per core versus 6 MB shared L3 with 2.5 MB total L2.
• Memory: dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 with ECC support versus single-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X without ECC.
• PCIe: Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes versus Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.
• Graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe).
• Launch MSRP: $134 for the i3-14100T and $340 for the Core 5 320.
• Release dates: the i3 launched in January 2024, the Core 5 320 in April 2026, per the recorded database entries.

Both chips are active production parts with locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-threaded work?

A: The Core 5 320, in every recorded test. Its advantages range from 10.8 percent in Cinebench R20 single-core to 40.2 percent in Cinebench R15 single-core, and it leads Passmark single thread by 13.5 percent.

Q: Which CPU is faster for heavy multi-threaded rendering?

A: The i3-14100T, decisively in the longest test. It scores 11612 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 6197, an 87.4 percent lead. In the shorter Cinebench R20 multi-core run, however, the Core 5 320 wins by 10.7 percent, so duration of the workload matters.

Q: Do they support the same memory?

A: No. The i3-14100T supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus and supports ECC. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus, with 59.7 GB/s of recorded bandwidth, and does not support ECC.

Q: Can either chip be overclocked?

A: No. Both have locked multipliers according to the database.

Q: How do they compare overall?

A: Their aggregate positions are nearly identical. The i3-14100T averages 17648 and sits in the 71st percentile; the Core 5 320 averages 18023 and sits in the 72nd percentile. The Core 5 320 wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the i3's four wins include the two largest multi-core Cinebench margins.

Q: Which platform has more expansion?

A: The i3-14100T, by a wide margin: PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes versus PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, plus a socketed desktop package versus soldered BGA.

The Verdict

The data splits cleanly by workload. Pick the i3-14100T for sustained threaded production work: rendering in Cinebench R23, integer-heavy computation where it leads by 24.7 percent, and compression tasks, all on a desktop platform with double the PCIe lanes, dual-channel memory with ECC, and a socket that permits future upgrades. Its 87.4 percent Cinebench R23 multi-core advantage is the single most important number in this pairing.

Pick the Core 5 320 for per-core speed and efficiency. It wins every single-threaded measurement, most per-core Passmark subtests, and the overall Passmark multithread score, while drawing 15 W instead of 35 W. On a 3 nm process with Xe3 integrated graphics and LPDDR5X support, it is the better fit where snappy responsiveness and power draw matter more than long-duration throughput. Its weaknesses are structural: 6 MB of shared L3, a single-channel memory bus, and a soldered mobile package with minimal PCIe connectivity. For a threaded desktop workload, the i3 wins; for everything else in the recorded data, the Core 5 320 does.