Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core i5-14400T Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits this comparison into two very different roles. The Intel Core 5 320 wins 4 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core i5-14400T wins 13. That is not a close contest overall, but the wins are concentrated in specific workloads that matter for different use cases.

The Core 5 320 takes its victories in single-threaded and light integer work. It wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 13.1%, PassMark single-thread by 15.2%, and PassMark find prime numbers by 50.7%. These are the kinds of tasks that respond to fast individual cores and short, dependent instruction chains. The 4.60 GHz boost clock on the Core 5 320 versus 4.50 GHz on the i5-14400T helps explain the advantage, along with the newer architecture.

The i5-14400T dominates nearly everything else. Its largest margins come in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it leads by 63.9%, and PassMark integer math, where it leads by 50.8%. It also wins PassMark data compression by 36.9%, random string sorting by 28.4%, Cinebench R20 multi-core by 24.3%, and PassMark multi-thread by 23.6%. These are heavily parallel workloads, and the i5-14400T has 10 cores and 16 threads versus 6 cores and 6 threads on the Core 5 320.

For a user, the split is clear. The Core 5 320 handles quick, latency-sensitive tasks like light scripting, UI responsiveness, or prime number calculations with a decisive edge. The i5-14400T is the stronger choice for rendering, compression, encryption, sorting, and any workload that scales with thread count. The data shows a classic trade-off: one chip prioritizes per-core speed, the other prioritizes raw throughput.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core 5 320. It wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 13.1% and PassMark single-thread by 15.2%. Both tests favor its higher 4.60 GHz boost clock.

Q: How much faster is the i5-14400T in multi-core rendering?

A: The i5-14400T leads Cinebench R23 multi-core by 63.9% (17189 versus 6197) and Cinebench R20 multi-core by 24.3% (7219 versus 5462). Its 10 cores and 16 threads provide a substantial parallel advantage.

Q: Do both CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the i5-14400T uses UHD Graphics 730. Neither requires a discrete GPU for basic display output.

Q: What memory types does each CPU support?

A: The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus. The i5-14400T supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Which CPU has better data encryption performance?

A: The i5-14400T. It scores 13244 in PassMark data encryption versus 10984 for the Core 5 320, a 17.1% advantage.

Q: Are both CPUs currently in production?

A: Yes. The database lists both the Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Core i5-14400T with an "Active" production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win belongs to the i5-14400T in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its score of 17189 crushes the Core 5 320's 6197, a 63.9% deficit. This is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gap in parallel throughput. The i5-14400T's 10 cores, 16 threads, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache simply overwhelm the 6-core, 6-thread Core 5 320 with 6 MB of L3.

Cinebench R15 multi-core tells the same story at a smaller scale. The i5-14400T scores 1732 versus 1054, a 39.1% lead. PassMark integer math shows a 50.8% gap (65667 versus 32323), and PassMark data compression shows a 36.9% gap (235636 versus 148779). These are the workloads where the i5-14400T's extra cores and threads convert directly into higher scores.

The Core 5 320 does not go down without a fight in single-threaded tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4045 versus 3512, a 15.2% win. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 276 versus 244, a 13.1% win. The most striking result is PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core 5 320 scores 110 versus 73, a 50.7% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to branch prediction and per-core integer execution, and the Wildcat Lake architecture delivers a decisive edge.

Cinebench R20 single-core is an outlier. The i5-14400T wins that test by 24.3% (1018 versus 771), which contradicts the single-thread trend from R15 and PassMark. The R20 single-core test appears to scale differently with the i5-14400T's higher sustained clock behavior or memory subsystem. The data shows the i5-14400T also wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 20.6% (2426 versus 1926), so the Core 5 320's single-thread advantage is not universal across all benchmarks.

PassMark physics is nearly a tie. The i5-14400T scores 1244 versus 1221, a 1.8% lead. PassMark extended instructions goes to the i5-14400T by 8.9% (14562 versus 13262), and PassMark floating point math goes to the i5-14400T by 13.6% (49139 versus 42440). PassMark multithread shows a 23.6% win for the i5-14400T (20223 versus 15450), and PassMark random string sorting shows a 28.4% win (25181 versus 18038).

The overall pattern is consistent. The i5-14400T wins 13 tests, the Core 5 320 wins 4. The Core 5 320's wins are in narrow, latency-bound scenarios. The i5-14400T's wins are broader and often much larger in magnitude.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i5-14400T has 10 cores and 16 threads. Both have a 1.50 GHz base clock, but the Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz versus 4.50 GHz on the i5-14400T.

Thermal design power differs significantly. The Core 5 320 is rated at 15 W TDP, while the i5-14400T is rated at 35 W TDP. This aligns with their market segments: the Core 5 320 is a mobile part, and the i5-14400T is a desktop part.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket. The i5-14400T uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket with an LGA form factor.

Cache configuration is another major difference. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The i5-14400T has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The i5-14400T's larger L3 is a direct contributor to its multi-threaded and data-heavy workload advantages.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The i5-14400T supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. The i5-14400T also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 320 does not.

PCIe connectivity is not comparable. The Core 5 320 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the i5-14400T offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The i5-14400T has significantly more expansion headroom for GPUs and NVMe drives.

The i5-14400T has a larger die size at 215 mm², while the Core 5 320 does not have a recorded die size. Release dates differ by over two years: the i5-14400T launched in January 2024, and the Core 5 320 launched in April 2026. The launch MSRP is $340 for the Core 5 320 and $221 for the i5-14400T.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 320 is built on Wildcat Lake, a 3 nm process from Intel. The i5-14400T is built on Raptor Lake-R, a 10 nm process. The process node difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 10 nm explains why the Core 5 320 achieves a higher boost clock at half the TDP (15 W versus 35 W).

The Core 5 320 uses 6 cores and 6 threads with no hyper-threading. The i5-14400T uses 10 cores and 16 threads, meaning 6 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores with hyper-threading on the performance cores. The thread count difference is the single largest architectural factor in the benchmark results.

The integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 320 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, a newer GPU architecture. The i5-14400T has UHD Graphics 730, which is based on the older Raptor Lake graphics block. Neither is a gaming GPU, but the Xe3 architecture is more modern.

Memory architecture is also different. The Core 5 320 uses a single-channel memory bus, which is typical for low-power mobile parts. The i5-14400T uses a dual-channel bus, which provides higher effective bandwidth for multi-threaded workloads. The i5-14400T supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core 5 320 supports only DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the i5-14400T. This makes it suitable for entry-level workstation builds where data integrity is a priority. The Core 5 320 has no ECC support.

The Core 5 320's 6 MB L3 cache is small compared to the i5-14400T's 20 MB. For workloads that repeatedly access a working set larger than 6 MB, the i5-14400T will have a cache hit advantage. For workloads that fit within 6 MB, the Core 5 320's faster cores and newer architecture can overcome the cache deficit.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for most users. The Intel Core i5-14400T wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, including all of the heavy multi-threaded tests. Its 63.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 50.8% lead in PassMark integer math make it the stronger processor for rendering, compilation, compression, and any workload that uses multiple threads. The 20 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory, 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and ECC support further reinforce its position as a capable desktop workhorse.

The Intel Core 5 320 is the better pick only for a narrow set of latency-sensitive tasks. Its wins in PassMark single-thread (15.2%), Cinebench R15 single-core (13.1%), and PassMark find prime numbers (50.7%) show real per-core strength. The 3 nm process and 15 W TDP also make it a far more efficient part, which suits thin-and-light mobile devices where battery life and thermals are the priority. Its 6 MB L3 cache and single-channel memory are limiting factors for sustained multi-threaded work.

The percentile ranking confirms the gap. The i5-14400T sits at the 79th percentile versus all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd. The i5-14400T's average benchmark score is 27166 versus 18023 for the Core 5 320. The nearest rival data places the i5-14400T alongside the Intel Core i9-9900K and AMD Ryzen 7 5700G, while the Core 5 320 sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core 5 120U.

For a desktop builder who needs maximum throughput, the i5-14400T is the obvious choice. For a mobile user who needs fast single-thread response in a low-power package, the Core 5 320 delivers where it counts. The benchmark data does not support the Core 5 320 as a general-purpose performance leader, but it does carve out a legitimate niche in single-threaded efficiency.