Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core i9-14900KS Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core i9-14900KS wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 5 320. The margins vary significantly by workload, with the largest gaps appearing in multithreaded rendering and the smallest in single-thread integer performance.

Cinebench results reveal the most extreme disparities. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i9-14900KS scores 50,995 against 6,197 for the Core 5 320, a difference of 87.8%. That translates to roughly 8.2 times the multicore rendering throughput. The R20 multicore test shows a similar pattern: 21,417 versus 5,462, a 74.5% gap. Even the older R15 multicore benchmark, which tends to compress scores, shows 5,140 against 1,054, a 79.5% deficit for the Core 5 320.

Single-core results are less lopsided but still uniformly favor the i9-14900KS. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the i9-14900KS posts 7,199 against 1,926, a 73.2% lead. The R20 singlecore test shows 3,023 versus 771, a 74.5% margin. R15 singlecore narrows to 725 versus 276, a 61.9% gap. These numbers indicate that the i9-14900KS's architectural advantage extends beyond core count into per-thread execution efficiency.

PassMark workloads break down into two clusters. The first cluster, heavily multithreaded tasks, shows enormous advantages for the i9-14900KS. Integer math scores 212,644 versus 32,323, an 84.8% lead. Floating point math delivers 153,975 versus 42,440, a 72.4% margin. Data compression shows 803,368 versus 148,779, an 81.5% gap. Random string sorting records 89,789 versus 18,038, a 79.9% difference. Data encryption posts 47,717 versus 10,984, a 77% lead. Extended instructions reach 45,524 versus 13,262, a 70.9% gap.

The second cluster, more latency-sensitive or lightly threaded tasks, shows smaller but still consistent leads. PassMark multithread scores 60,012 versus 15,450, a 74.3% margin. Physics simulation records 3,381 versus 1,221, a 63.9% gap. Find prime numbers posts 244 versus 110, a 54.9% lead. The closest contest appears in PassMark single-thread performance, where the i9-14900KS scores 4,815 versus 4,045, a 16% advantage.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies the positioning. The Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18,023. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (17,994, 0.2% behind), the Intel Core 5 120U (17,898, 0.7% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17,891, 0.7% behind). The Core 5 320 also trails the Intel Core i5-1334U (18,154) by 0.7%. This places the Core 5 320 in a performance tier occupied by mid-range desktop and mobile processors from several generations.

The i9-14900KS occupies the 96th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 81,127. Its nearest rivals are essentially tied: the Intel Xeon w5-3535X (81,115, 0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (81,103, 0% delta), and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 (80,762, 0.5% behind). The i9-14900KS also leads the Intel Xeon 638 (80,723) by 0.5%. These comparisons show that the i9-14900KS sits near the top of the database's entire CPU population, while the Core 5 320 sits near the middle.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900KS wins with a score of 50,995 against 6,197 for the Intel Core 5 320, a margin of 87.8%.

Q: How close is single-thread performance between the two?

A: The closest benchmark gap appears in PassMark single-thread, where the i9-14900KS scores 4,815 against 4,045 for the Core 5 320, a 16% lead. Cinebench R15 singlecore shows a 61.9% gap (725 versus 276).

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The i9-14900KS has an average benchmark score of 81,127, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 320 has an average score of 18,023, placing it in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How does the Core 5 320 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core 5 320 is nearly tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (18,023 versus 17,994, 0.2% ahead), the Intel Core 5 120U (17,898, 0.7% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17,891, 0.7% ahead). It trails the Intel Core i5-1334U (18,154) by 0.7%.

Q: Does the i9-14900KS have any close competitors in the database?

A: Yes. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon w5-3535X (81,115, 0% difference), the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (81,103, 0% difference), and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 (80,762, 0.5% behind). The Intel Xeon 638 (80,723) trails by 0.5%.

Q: In which workload does the i9-14900KS show its smallest advantage?

A: The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread at 16% (4,815 versus 4,045). The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multicore at 87.8% (50,995 versus 6,197).

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design points. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core i9-14900KS uses the Raptor Lake-R codename, belongs to the Core 14th Gen series with a Raptor Lake architecture, and is built on a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process generation gap is substantial: 3 nm versus 10 nm.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, indicating no hyper-threading. The i9-14900KS has 24 cores and 32 threads, which implies a hybrid configuration with 8 performance cores and 16 efficiency cores, where only the performance cores add hyper-threading. This 4x core count and roughly 5.3x thread count difference explains the massive multicore benchmark gaps.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure as well as capacity. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9-14900KS specifies L1 cache as 80 KB per core, L2 cache as 2 MB per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9-14900KS also has a listed die size of 257 mm², while the Core 5 320 has no die size recorded.

The memory subsystems reflect their target platforms. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The i9-14900KS supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no memory bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory support also differs: the i9-14900KS supports ECC, the Core 5 320 does not.

PCIe capabilities are another differentiator. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The i9-14900KS provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This reflects the mobile versus desktop positioning, with the desktop part offering both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The i9-14900KS uses UHD Graphics 770. Neither benchmark set includes graphics tests, so no direct performance comparison is possible from the recorded data.

The i9-14900KS has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 320 does not. This means the desktop part allows overclocking, while the mobile part is locked.

Specification Differences

The following specification fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 6 (Core 5 320) versus 24 (i9-14900KS)
• Threads: 6 versus 32
• Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.60 GHz versus 6.20 GHz
• TDP: 15 W versus 150 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1700
• Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Raptor Lake-R
• Generation: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) versus Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh)
• Process node: 3 nm versus 10 nm
• Die size: not recorded versus 257 mm²
• L1 cache: 192 KB versus 80 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2.5 MB versus 2 MB per core
• L3 cache: 6 MB (shared) versus 36 MB (shared)
• Memory support: DDR5, LPDDR5X versus DDR4, DDR5
• Memory bus: Single-channel versus Dual-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus not recorded
• ECC memory: false versus true
• PCIe: Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus UHD Graphics 770
• Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop
• Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2024-03-13
• Launch MSRP: $340 versus $689
• Multiplier unlocked: false versus true
• Part number: SAE3H versus SRN7R

The TDP difference is particularly notable: 15 W versus 150 W, a 10x gap. This alone explains many of the performance differences, as the desktop part has far more thermal headroom for sustained boost clocks. The base clock gap (1.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz) and boost clock gap (4.60 GHz versus 6.20 GHz) both favor the i9-14900KS substantially.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of use cases. The Intel Core i9-14900KS is the superior processor in every recorded benchmark, with an average score of 81,127 against 18,023 for the Core 5 320. The 96th percentile placement versus the 72nd percentile placement confirms that the i9-14900KS belongs to a different performance class entirely.

Workloads that demand heavy multithreading, such as 3D rendering, data compression, encryption, and large integer math operations, show the largest advantages for the i9-14900KS. The Cinebench R23 multicore gap of 87.8% and the PassMark integer math gap of 84.8% are representative of this pattern. For users running such workloads, the i9-14900KS delivers approximately 8x the rendering throughput of the Core 5 320.

The Core 5 320's strengths lie elsewhere. Its 15 W TDP, mobile socket, and single-channel memory support indicate a low-power mobile design. The 3 nm process node and support for LPDDR5X memory suggest efficiency-focused operation. The 72nd percentile placement still puts it above the majority of CPUs in the database, and its nearest rivals include capable desktop processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 5 3600XT, which it essentially matches.

The i9-14900KS, by contrast, targets desktop enthusiasts with its 150 W TDP, Socket 1700, and unlocked multiplier. Its nearest rivals are workstation and high-end mobile parts, including the Intel Xeon w5-3535X and AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX, all of which are statistically tied in average score. The 6.20 GHz boost clock is the highest recorded among the two processors, and the 36 MB shared L3 cache provides a substantial pool for cache-sensitive workloads.

For single-threaded tasks, the i9-14900KS still leads, but the margin shrinks to as little as 16% in PassMark single-thread. This suggests that the Core 5 320's per-core execution is comparatively competent, even if the overall package cannot match the i9-14900KS's combination of high clock speeds and massive core counts.

The choice between these processors depends entirely on the target platform and workload profile. A mobile system with tight power constraints would use the Core 5 320. A desktop system built for maximum throughput would use the i9-14900KS. The benchmark data offers no scenario where the Core 5 320 outperforms the i9-14900KS, but the two parts serve different markets and the Core 5 320 remains competitive within its own segment.