Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL serve different segments within the same manufacturer’s lineup. The Core 5 320 is a mobile processor built on the 3 nm Wildcat Lake design, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL is a desktop part from the Meteor Lake-PS family on a 7 nm node. The benchmark data shows a clear performance separation, with the Core 5 320 delivering substantially higher throughput in every recorded test. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has no benchmark scores in the database, making direct comparison impossible from measured results alone. The Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero. For users prioritizing measured performance, the Core 5 320 is the only option with verified results. The Core Ultra 5 125HL offers more cores, threads, cache, and a dual-channel memory bus, but the absence of recorded scores means its real-world standing remains unquantified.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher measured multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 records a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6197, a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 5462, and a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 1054. The Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL has no benchmark scores recorded in the database.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ?

A: The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has 14 cores and 18 threads, representing a hybrid configuration with more parallelism potential.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process node. The Core Ultra 5 125HL uses a 7 nm process node.

Q: Which processor offers higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125HL records 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth with a dual-channel bus. The Core 5 320 records 59.7 GB/s with a single-channel bus.

Q: Do both processors support the same socket?

A: No. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: What are the integrated graphics configurations?

A: The Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 125HL includes Arc Xe-LPG 112EU.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 320 belongs to the Wildcat Lake generation, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL belongs to the Meteor Lake-PS generation under the Core Ultra Series 1 branding. The most fundamental difference lies in the process technology: the Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm node, whereas the Core Ultra 5 125HL uses a 7 nm node. This process disparity contributes to different power envelopes, with the Core 5 320 rated at 15 watts TDP and the Core Ultra 5 125HL rated at 45 watts TDP.

The core topology diverges sharply. The Core 5 320 offers 6 physical cores with 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 125HL provides 14 cores and 18 threads, indicating a hybrid architecture with performance and efficiency core types. The database does not specify the exact core mix, but the thread count implies a combination of cores that allows extra threads beyond the physical count.

Cache hierarchies differ in both capacity and organization. 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 Ultra 5 125HL has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core designations for the Core Ultra 5 125HL mean its total L1 and L2 capacities scale with the number of cores, resulting in a larger aggregate cache footprint. The L3 cache advantage is notable: 18 MB versus 6 MB, triple the shared cache capacity.

Memory support reflects the different market positions. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 125HL supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, delivering 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, which is 50% higher than the Core 5 320. The Core Ultra 5 125HL memory support depends on the motherboard, per the database entry.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 125HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), offering two additional CPU-attached lanes.

Integrated graphics represent another architectural split. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, a newer graphics architecture. The Core Ultra 5 125HL uses Arc Xe-LPG 112EU, which has a higher execution unit count but comes from the previous generation. The database does not provide graphics benchmark scores for either processor.

The production status for both is active. The Core 5 320 has a release date of April 15, 2026, while the Core Ultra 5 125HL has a release date of April 7, 2024. The Core 5 320 launches with a $340 launch MSRP, and the Core Ultra 5 125HL launches with a $325 launch MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers.

Specification Differences

The following table summarizes the differences between the two processors based solely on the recorded data:

| Specification | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL |

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

| Cores | 6 | 14 |

| Threads | 6 | 18 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process node | 3 nm | 7 nm |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 5 (Meteor Lake-PS) |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 112 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 (depends on motherboard) |

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

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 8 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG 112EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

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

| Launch MSRP | $340 | $325 |

| Part number | SAE3H | SRN9D |

The base clock of the Core 5 320 is 1.50 GHz, which is 0.30 GHz higher than the Core Ultra 5 125HL’s 1.20 GHz. The boost clock of the Core 5 320 is 4.60 GHz, 0.10 GHz higher than the Core Ultra 5 125HL’s 4.50 GHz. Despite the higher clocks, the Core 5 320 operates at a much lower TDP of 15 watts versus 45 watts.

The memory bus width is a key differentiator. The Core Ultra 5 125HL has a dual-channel bus, which doubles the theoretical bandwidth compared to the single-channel Core 5 320. The recorded bandwidth figures confirm this: 89.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s.

No transistor counts or die sizes are recorded for either processor, so those fields remain unspecified. Both processors lack ECC memory support and have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL. The Intel Core Ultra 5 125HL has an empty benchmark array, meaning zero recorded scores in any test. The Intel Core 5 320 has 17 benchmark entries covering Cinebench and Passmark workloads.

Because the Core Ultra 5 125HL lacks benchmark data, no direct wins can be assigned to either processor from head-to-head measurements. The winsA and winsB fields both record zero. This absence of data prevents a quantitative comparison of their relative performance in specific workloads.

The Core 5 320’s measured results provide a baseline for its capabilities. In Cinebench R15, it scores 1054 multi-core and 276 single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5462 multi-core and 771 single-core. In Cinebench R23, it scores 6197 multi-core and 1926 single-core. These scores indicate the Core 5 320 handles both multi-threaded rendering and single-threaded workloads with modest efficiency given its 6-core, 6-thread configuration.

Passmark results for the Core 5 320 cover a broader range of operations. Data compression scores 148779, data encryption scores 10984, extended instructions score 13262, and prime number finding scores 110. Floating point math scores 42440, integer math scores 32323, multithread scores 15450, and physics scores 1221. Random string sorting scores 18038, and single-thread performance scores 4045.

The average benchmark score for the Core 5 320 is 18023. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 with an average score of 17994 (0.2% difference), the Intel Core 5 120U with an average score of 17898 (0.7% difference), the Intel Core i5-1334U with an average score of 18154 (-0.7% difference), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT with an average score of 17891 (0.7% difference). These rivals bracket the Core 5 320 closely, with the largest recorded delta at only 0.7%.

The Core Ultra 5 125HL has no nearest rivals recorded and no average benchmark score. Its percentile ranking of 50 places it at the median of all CPUs in the database, but this ranking is not supported by any measured scores. The percentile appears to be a placeholder rather than a derived statistic.

Without benchmark data for the Core Ultra 5 125HL, any performance comparison must rely on architectural specifications. The Core Ultra 5 125HL’s 14 cores and 18 threads suggest higher multi-threaded capacity than the Core 5 320’s 6 cores and 6 threads. The 18 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory bus also favor the Core Ultra 5 125HL for memory-intensive workloads. However, the Core 5 320 has a higher boost clock (4.60 GHz versus 4.50 GHz), a newer process node (3 nm versus 7 nm), and a lower TDP (15 watts versus 45 watts).

The Core 5 320’s benchmark scores indicate it performs competitively against older desktop processors. Its average score of 18023 places it within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, a desktop processor with a different architecture. The Core 5 320 also comes within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and 0.7% of the Intel Core 5 120U, while trailing the Intel Core i5-1334U by 0.7%.

The lack of benchmark data for the Core Ultra 5 125HL means its position in the database remains undefined. The recorded percentile of 50 suggests median performance, but this cannot be verified from measurements. The Core 5 320’s percentile of 72 places it above the median, backed by a full set of benchmark results.

For users selecting between these two processors, the Core 5 320 offers verified performance in every recorded category. The Core Ultra 5 125HL offers architectural advantages in core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth, but no measured scores exist to quantify their impact. The database shows no head-to-head wins for either processor, and the winsA and winsB fields both remain at zero. The Core 5 320 is the only processor in this comparison with empirical evidence of its capabilities.