Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core i9-14900 Comparison

Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core i9-14900 are two processors from different ends of Intel's lineup, and the recorded benchmark data reflects a substantial performance gap. The Core 5 320 is a mobile-focused part built on a newer process node, while the Core i9-14900 is a desktop-class chip with far more cores and threads. The data shows that the Core i9-14900 wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, but the nature of those wins varies widely depending on the workload. This analysis breaks down where each processor holds its ground, how their architectures differ, and what the exact scores indicate about their respective capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results show a clean sweep for the Intel Core i9-14900, with 17 wins out of 17 recorded tests. The Intel Core 5 320 does not secure a single victory in any of the compared workloads. This does not mean the Core 5 320 is without merit, but its strengths lie in areas not captured by wins in this comparison, such as its mobile market segment and lower power envelope.

The Core i9-14900 dominates in multi-threaded workloads, which is expected given its 24 cores and 32 threads. Its largest margins appear in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 31070 against 6197, a delta of -80.1% for the Core 5 320. Similarly, in PassMark integer math, the Core i9-14900 scores 175010 versus 32323, a -81.5% delta. These are workloads that scale with core count and thread availability.

The Core i9-14900 also leads in single-threaded tests, though by smaller margins. In PassMark single thread, it scores 4323 against 4045, a delta of only -6.4%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a similar pattern: 2212 versus 1926, a -12.9% delta. This indicates that while the Core i9-14900 has a higher boost clock, the Core 5 320's newer architecture narrows the gap in lightly threaded tasks.

For the Core 5 320, its best relative showing is in single-threaded PassMark tests, where the delta is just -6.4%. It also comes closest in Cinebench R15 single-core with a -12.4% delta. These results suggest that in day-to-day tasks that rely on single-core performance, the Core 5 320 is reasonably competitive despite its much lower core count. However, in any workload that uses multiple threads, the Core i9-14900 pulls ahead by wide margins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The Intel Core 5 320 is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core i9-14900 uses a 10 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the smaller node gives the Core 5 320 a density and efficiency advantage. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it has no hyper-threading. The Core i9-14900 has 24 cores and 32 threads, which indicates a hybrid architecture with performance and efficiency cores. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core i9-14900 uses Raptor Lake-R and belongs to the Raptor Lake architecture.

Cache configurations differ significantly. 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 i9-14900 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Core i9-14900 means its total L2 cache is substantially larger across 24 cores, and its 36 MB L3 cache dwarfs the 6 MB on the Core 5 320.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core i9-14900 supports DDR4 and DDR5, uses a dual-channel memory bus, and has no recorded memory bandwidth figure in the database. The Core 5 320 does not support ECC memory, while the Core i9-14900 does. PCIe capabilities also differ: the Core 5 320 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i9-14900 offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics are different as well. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core i9-14900 uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core 5 320 is a mobile processor with an Intel BGA 1516 socket, whereas the Core i9-14900 is a desktop processor with an Intel Socket 1700. The Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core i9-14900 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Both processors have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the largest multi-core gaps. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core i9-14900 scores 31070 against 6197, a -80.1% delta for the Core 5 320. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 15910 versus 5462, a -65.7% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4793 versus 1054, a -78% delta. These results confirm that the Core i9-14900 is more than four times faster in some multi-threaded rendering tests, which aligns with its 24-core, 32-thread configuration.

Single-core Cinebench results are closer. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2212 versus 1926, a -12.9% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2245 versus 771, a -65.7% delta, which is an outlier compared to the other single-core tests. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 315 versus 276, a -12.4% delta. The R20 single-core result stands out as unusually large compared to the other single-core deltas, but the recorded data shows it clearly.

PassMark tests cover a broader range of workloads. In data compression, the Core i9-14900 scores 550271 against 148779, a -73% delta. Data encryption shows 33540 versus 10984, a -67.3% delta. Extended instructions show 30624 versus 13262, a -56.7% delta. Find prime numbers shows 188 versus 110, a -41.5% delta. Floating point math shows 120262 versus 42440, a -64.7% delta. Integer math shows 175010 versus 32323, a -81.5% delta. Multithread shows 44578 versus 15450, a -65.3% delta. Physics shows 2486 versus 1221, a -50.9% delta. Random string sorting shows 61060 versus 18038, a -70.5% delta.

The smallest delta in the entire comparison is in PassMark single-threaded tests, where the Core i9-14900 scores 4323 against 4045, a -6.4% delta. This is the closest the Core 5 320 comes to matching the Core i9-14900. The average benchmark score for the Core i9-14900 is 58115, while the Core 5 320 has an average of 18023. The Core i9-14900 sits at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd percentile.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the Intel Core i9-14900 is the stronger processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, with its largest advantages in multi-threaded workloads and its smallest in single-threaded tasks. The Core i9-14900 achieves a 92nd percentile ranking among all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 320. Its average benchmark score of 58115 is more than three times the 18023 average of the Core 5 320.

The Core 5 320 is a mobile processor, and its 6-core, 6-thread configuration places it in a different performance class entirely. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 with an average score of 17994 and a delta of 0.2%, the Intel Core 5 120U with 17898 and a delta of 0.7%, the Intel Core i5-1334U with 18154 and a delta of -0.7%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT with 17891 and a delta of 0.7%. The Core i9-14900, by contrast, sits near processors like the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M with 58323 and a delta of -0.4%, the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D with 58386 and a delta of -0.5%, the Intel Xeon w5-2545 with 58504 and a delta of -0.7%, and the AMD EPYC 9015 with 57555 and a delta of 1%.

For workloads that demand high multi-threaded throughput, the Core i9-14900 is the clear choice based on the data. For a mobile platform where the Core 5 320 operates, the single-threaded performance is competitive, but the overall compute capacity is far lower. The Core i9-14900 has a launch MSRP of $549, while the Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340. The Core i9-14900 also supports ECC memory and offers Gen 5 PCIe lanes, features that the Core 5 320 lacks. The Core 5 320 uses a smaller 3 nm node and a newer codename, but those architectural advantages do not translate into benchmark wins against the Core i9-14900.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the recorded data?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks recorded against the Intel Core 5 320, covering Cinebench and PassMark tests.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Core i9-14900 scores 175010 against 32323, a -81.5% delta for the Core 5 320. Cinebench R23 multi-core is close behind with a -80.1% delta.

Q: How close are the two processors in single-threaded performance?

A: In PassMark single thread, the Core i9-14900 scores 4323 against 4045, a -6.4% delta, which is the smallest gap in the comparison. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a -12.9% delta.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Intel Core i9-14900 has 24 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. The Core i9-14900 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 320 does not.

Q: What are the process nodes for these processors?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core i9-14900 is built on a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900 has a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, compared to 4.60 GHz for the Intel Core 5 320.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core i9-14900 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 36 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 | $549 |

| Part Number | SAE3H | SRN3V |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 72 | 92 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 18023 | 58115 |

| Geekbench Single-Core | Not recorded | 2488 |

| Geekbench Multi-Core | Not recorded | 18495 |