Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core i5-14600 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-14600 dominates the Intel Core 5 320 across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The i5-14600 wins every single benchmark, with the closest margin being a 2.9% advantage in PassMark single-thread performance and the largest being a 79.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core 5 320 does not secure a single win in any workload category.

The Core i5-14600 sits in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 320 sits in the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score for the i5-14600 is 44889, versus 18023 for the Core 5 320. That gap, roughly 2.5 times the average score, places these processors in entirely different performance tiers.

For users seeking maximum compute throughput, desktop expansion, and multi-threaded capability, the Core i5-14600 is the clear choice from the data. For users constrained by mobile power envelopes, the Core 5 320 offers a compact 15 TDP package with a modern 3 nm process node, but it sacrifices substantial performance to achieve that efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, manufactured on a 3 nm process node, while the Core i5-14600 uses Raptor Lake-R, manufactured on a 10 nm process node. Both are built by Intel, but the process generation gap is substantial.

The Core 5 320 is a mobile-focused part with 6 cores and 6 threads, indicating no hyper-threading. The Core i5-14600 is a desktop part with 14 cores and 20 threads, which implies a hybrid core arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The thread count difference is significant: the i5-14600 offers 20 threads versus 6, a more than threefold advantage in thread parallelism.

Cache configurations differ sharply. 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 i5-14600 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-14600's L3 cache is four times larger, which benefits workloads with high data reuse.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel memory bus and a measured memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core i5-14600 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. The i5-14600 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 320 does not.

PCIe capabilities differ by a full generation. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i5-14600 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the i5-14600 uses UHD Graphics 770.

The socket types are incompatible. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket. The Core i5-14600 uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop LGA socket. This means platform choice is dictated by form factor before any performance consideration.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600 has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 320 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the Core i5-14600?

A: The Core i5-14600 has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, which is four times the 6 MB shared L3 cache on the Core 5 320.

Q: Does the Core 5 320 support ECC memory?

A: No, the Core 5 320 does not support ECC memory. The Core i5-14600 does support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Core 5 320?

A: The Core 5 320 has a measured memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, using a single-channel memory bus. The Core i5-14600 uses a dual-channel bus; no bandwidth figure is recorded for it.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core i5-14600 has an average benchmark score of 44889, compared to 18023 for the Core 5 320. The i5-14600 also ranks in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 320.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15, while the Core i5-14600 has a TDP of 65.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core i5-14600 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 14 |

| Threads | 6 | 20 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 15 | 65 |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| Process node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Die size | Not recorded | 257 mm² |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | $255 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Part number | SAE3H | SRN44 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i5-14600 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The scale of victory varies dramatically by workload type.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-14600 scores 30464 against 6197 for the Core 5 320, a 79.7% advantage. This is the largest margin in the entire benchmark set. The R20 multi-core test shows a 57.3% gap (12794 versus 5462), and R15 multi-core shows a 65.7% gap (3070 versus 1054). These results reflect the i5-14600's core and thread advantage, with 14 cores and 20 threads providing far more parallel execution capacity than 6 cores and 6 threads.

Single-core performance is closer but still favors the i5-14600. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5-14600 scores 4300 versus 1926, a 55.2% lead. R20 single-core shows a 57.3% lead (1806 versus 771), and R15 single-core shows a 36.3% lead (433 versus 276). The PassMark single-thread test shows the narrowest margin of all: 4167 versus 4045, just a 2.9% difference. This indicates that in lightly threaded workloads, the architectural efficiency of the Core 5 320's 3 nm node partially offsets the raw clock speed advantage of the i5-14600.

Integer math shows the largest single-workload gap after Cinebench R23. The i5-14600 scores 117078 in PassMark integer math, versus 32323 for the Core 5 320, a 72.4% difference. Data compression shows a 65.8% gap (434620 versus 148779). Random string sorting shows a 62.5% gap (48043 versus 18038). Floating-point math shows a 50.5% gap (85759 versus 42440). These results confirm that the i5-14600's advantage scales with workload parallelism and data throughput.

Data encryption shows a 56.2% gap (25082 versus 10984). Extended instructions show a 48.3% gap (25674 versus 13262). Physics simulation shows a 47.6% gap (2330 versus 1221). Prime number finding shows the smallest multi-threaded gap at 29% (155 versus 110). The PassMark multithread score shows a 56.9% gap (35848 versus 15450).

The Core 5 320's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (0.2% higher average score), the Intel Core 5 120U (0.7% higher), the Intel Core i5-1334U (0.7% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (0.7% higher). The Core i5-14600's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-12900KS (0.5% higher), AMD EPYC 4344P (0.5% higher), AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.7% lower), and Intel Core Ultra X9 388H (1% lower). These rival comparisons show that each processor competes in its own performance neighborhood, with no overlap between the two tiers.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i5-14600 wins in every measured workload category. No benchmark in the database shows a win for the Core 5 320. This makes the use-case split straightforward from the data.

The i5-14600 is the better choice for multi-threaded productivity, content creation, and compute-intensive tasks. Its 79.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 72.4% lead in integer math, and 65.8% lead in data compression indicate substantial advantages in rendering, compilation, and data processing workloads. The dual-channel memory bus and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also position it for desktop systems with discrete GPUs and high-bandwidth storage.

The i5-14600 also wins in single-threaded performance, though by a smaller margin. The 2.9% lead in PassMark single-thread and the 55.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core show that even in lightly threaded applications, the i5-14600's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz provides a meaningful advantage over the 4.60 GHz boost of the Core 5 320.

The Core 5 320's advantages are not in performance but in form factor and power efficiency. Its 15 TDP versus 65 TDP, single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, and BGA 1516 socket indicate a low-power mobile design. The 3 nm process node and LPDDR5X memory support suggest it targets thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals matter more than compute throughput. The 2 Xe Xe3 graphics also provide a modern integrated GPU option for mobile use.

For users building a desktop system, the data strongly favors the Core i5-14600. Its 89th percentile ranking, 24 MB L3 cache, 20 threads, and Gen 5 PCIe support make it suitable for demanding desktop workloads. The Core 5 320, at the 72nd percentile, is positioned for mobile platforms where the 15 TDP envelope is the primary constraint. The 17-0 benchmark sweep confirms that these are not competing products; they serve different market segments with different priorities.