Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core i7-8700 Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the Intel Core i7-8700 and the Intel Core 5 320 shows two processors with nearly identical average scores, but with starkly different performance profiles. The Core i7-8700 posts an average benchmark score of 18,223, while the Core 5 320 scores 18,023, a difference of roughly 1% that places both at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs.

The verdict depends entirely on workload priorities. The Core i7-8700 is the pick for sustained multi-threaded rendering and compression tasks. It wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 74.7% (10,829 versus 6,197), leads PassMark data compression by 25.7% (187,009 versus 148,779), and dominates integer math by 38.9% (44,881 versus 32,323). It also wins random string sorting by 32.8% (23,963 versus 18,038).

The Core 5 320 is the opposite choice for single-threaded and encryption-heavy workloads. It leads Cinebench R15 single-core by 44.6% (276 versus 153), Cinebench R23 single-core by 20.7% (1,926 versus 1,528), and PassMark single-thread by 35% (4,045 versus 2,629). Its data encryption score is 10,984 versus 4,488, a 59.1% advantage. It also wins floating-point math by 34.4% (42,440 versus 27,839) and find prime numbers by 68.2% (110 versus 35).

The Core i7-8700 is a desktop part with 12 threads and a 65W TDP. The Core 5 320 is a mobile part with 6 threads and a 15W TDP. The i7-8700 is end-of-life; the Core 5 320 is active. The data shows the desktop chip wins 5 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the mobile chip wins 12. Yet the overall average scores are nearly identical, which indicates the Core 5 320's single-core dominance compensates for its multi-thread deficit in the aggregate.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core i7-8700 uses the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node from Intel. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The die size is 154 mm², and it uses the Intel Socket 1151.

The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process node, also from Intel. It has 6 cores but only 6 threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading. Its base clock is significantly lower at 1.50 GHz, but the boost clock matches at 4.60 GHz. The cache layout is different: 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The die size is not recorded in the database.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The i7-8700 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the newer memory standard delivers higher bandwidth.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The i7-8700 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core 5 320 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The mobile part has fewer lanes but a newer generation.

Integrated graphics and sockets reflect their market segments. The i7-8700 includes UHD Graphics 630 and targets desktop systems. The Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) and targets mobile systems with the Intel BGA 1516 socket. The i7-8700 was released on 2017-10-04, while the Core 5 320 has a release date of 2026-04-15. The launch MSRP for the i7-8700 is $303; the Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-8700 has 12 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 threads. Both have 6 cores, but the i7-8700 supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: Both processors have the same boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Their base clocks differ: the i7-8700 runs at 3.20 GHz, while the Core 5 320 runs at 1.50 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-8700 has an average benchmark score of 18,223, and the Core 5 320 has 18,023. The difference is 0.2% or less when compared to their nearest rivals, and both sit at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core rendering?

A: The i7-8700 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 74.7% (10,829 versus 6,197). However, the Core 5 320 wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by 16.7% (5,462 versus 4,548), which shows that results vary by benchmark version and workload.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The i7-8700 has a TDP of 65W for desktop use. The Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15W for mobile use. This is a significant power envelope difference despite similar boost clocks.

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The Core 5 320 wins every recorded single-thread test. It leads Cinebench R15 single-core by 44.6% (276 versus 153), Cinebench R20 single-core by 16.9% (771 versus 641), Cinebench R23 single-core by 20.7% (1,926 versus 1,528), and PassMark single-thread by 35% (4,045 versus 2,629).

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors in the database:

• Threads: i7-8700 has 12; Core 5 320 has 6.
• Base clock: i7-8700 is 3.20 GHz; Core 5 320 is 1.50 GHz.
• TDP: i7-8700 is 65W; Core 5 320 is 15W.
• Socket: i7-8700 uses Intel Socket 1151; Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516.
• Codename: i7-8700 is Coffee Lake; Core 5 320 is Wildcat Lake.
• Process node: i7-8700 is 14 nm; Core 5 320 is 3 nm.
• Die size: i7-8700 is 154 mm²; Core 5 320 is not recorded.
• L1 cache: i7-8700 has 64 KB per core; Core 5 320 has 192 KB total.
• L2 cache: i7-8700 has 256 KB per core; Core 5 320 has 2.5 MB total.
• L3 cache: i7-8700 has 12 MB shared; Core 5 320 has 6 MB shared.
• Memory support: i7-8700 is DDR4; Core 5 320 is DDR5 and LPDDR5X.
• Memory bus: i7-8700 is dual-channel; Core 5 320 is single-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: i7-8700 is 42.7 GB/s; Core 5 320 is 59.7 GB/s.
• PCIe: i7-8700 is Gen 3 with 16 lanes; Core 5 320 is Gen 4 with 6 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: i7-8700 has UHD Graphics 630; Core 5 320 has Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe).
• Market segment: i7-8700 is Desktop; Core 5 320 is Mobile.
• Production status: i7-8700 is End-of-life; Core 5 320 is Active.
• Release date: i7-8700 is 2017-10-04; Core 5 320 is 2026-04-15.
• Launch MSRP: i7-8700 is $303; Core 5 320 is $340.
• Part number: i7-8700 is SR3QS; Core 5 320 is SAE3H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results reveal a clear pattern: the Core 5 320 dominates single-thread and modern instruction workloads, while the i7-8700 holds multi-thread and older rendering tests.

The i7-8700's biggest wins come in Cinebench R23 multi-core with a 74.7% margin (10,829 versus 6,197). This is its strongest result and reflects the advantage of 12 threads over 6 in a sustained rendering workload. PassMark integer math shows a 38.9% lead (44,881 versus 32,323), and random string sorting goes to the i7-8700 by 32.8% (23,963 versus 18,038). Data compression also favors the i7-8700 by 25.7% (187,009 versus 148,779). The older Cinebench R15 multi-core test goes to the i7-8700 by a narrow 3.5% (1,091 versus 1,054).

The Core 5 320's largest win is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 110 against 35, a 68.2% margin. Data encryption shows a 59.1% lead (10,984 versus 4,488). Cinebench R15 single-core gives the Core 5 320 a 44.6% advantage (276 versus 153). PassMark physics goes to the Core 5 320 by 40% (1,221 versus 732). Floating-point math favors the Core 5 320 by 34.4% (42,440 versus 27,839). PassMark single-thread shows a 35% lead (4,045 versus 2,629). PassMark multithread goes to the Core 5 320 by 17.4% (15,450 versus 12,756). Cinebench R20 multi-core favors the Core 5 320 by 16.7% (5,462 versus 4,548), and single-core by 16.9% (771 versus 641). Extended instructions show a 6.3% edge for the Core 5 320 (13,262 versus 12,432).

The overall win count is 12 for the Core 5 320 and 5 for the i7-8700. Yet the average benchmark scores differ by only 200 points. The explanation is that the Core 5 320's wins are often in workloads with higher raw scores, while the i7-8700's wins include the very large Cinebench R23 multi-core result. The data shows two chips that are comparable in aggregate but optimized for opposite ends of the workload spectrum.