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

FAQ

Q: How do the core counts compare between the Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125UL has 12 cores and 14 threads, while the Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 5 125UL offers double the core count and more than double the thread count.

Q: What process nodes do these two processors use?

A: The Core 5 320 is built on Intel's 3 nm process, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL uses a 7 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 320 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra 5 125UL's boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Core 5 320 also has a higher base clock at 1.50 GHz versus 1.30 GHz.

Q: What memory bandwidth do these processors support?

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

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 6 MB shared L3 cache found on the Core 5 320.

Q: How do their integrated graphics differ?

A: The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics.

Q: What are their launch MSRPs?

A: The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340, and the Core Ultra 5 125UL has a launch MSRP of $309.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL represent two distinct architectural approaches from Intel. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL is built on the Meteor Lake architecture and is part of the Core Ultra Series 1 as the Meteor Lake-PS codename.

The most fundamental difference lies in the manufacturing process. The Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process node, whereas the Core Ultra 5 125UL uses a 7 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the smaller process node on the Core 5 320 indicates a more advanced manufacturing technique.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The Core 5 320 offers 6 cores and 6 threads, a straightforward setup without hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 125UL provides 12 cores and 14 threads, suggesting a hybrid architecture with performance and efficiency cores, common in the Meteor Lake design. The thread count of 14 on a 12-core part indicates that some cores support hyper-threading while others do not.

Cache hierarchies also 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 Ultra 5 125UL lists 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 5 125UL suggests a different cache distribution strategy across its 12 cores.

Memory architecture separates these processors further. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 125UL supports DDR5 memory, though the specification notes it depends on the motherboard, and uses a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The dual-channel implementation on the Core Ultra 5 125UL provides substantially higher theoretical memory throughput.

PCIe connectivity shows minor differences. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. Both support PCIe Gen 4, but the Core Ultra 5 125UL offers two additional CPU-attached lanes.

Integrated graphics differ in branding and execution units. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. The latter's 64 EU configuration indicates a more substantial GPU block, though the different naming conventions make direct comparison difficult from the available data.

The socket types differ: the Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL uses Intel Socket 1851. The market segment classifications reflect this: the Core 5 320 is listed as Mobile, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL is listed as Desktop.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL. The headToHeadBenchmarks array in the recorded data is empty, and the wins count for both processors stands at zero. This absence of comparative measurements means the two chips have not been tested against each other in the same benchmark suite.

However, the Core 5 320 has a full set of benchmark scores, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL has none recorded. The Core 5 320 achieves an average benchmark score of 18023 across all tests, placing it at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Core Ultra 5 125UL holds a 50th percentile ranking but has an average benchmark score of zero due to the lack of recorded measurements.

The Core 5 320's nearest rivals provide context for its performance level. It sits 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, which has an average score of 17994. It is 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core 5 120U (17898) and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17891). The Intel Core i5-1334U scores 18154, placing it 0.7% ahead of the Core 5 320. These deltas are all within one percent, indicating that the Core 5 320 performs in a tightly contested band around the 18000 average score mark.

Within its own benchmark suite, the Core 5 320 shows a wide spread of results across different workloads. In Cinebench R23, it scores 6197 multi-core and 1926 single-core. The Cinebench R20 results are 5462 multi-core and 771 single-core, while Cinebench R15 shows 1054 multi-core and 276 single-core. PassMark tests reveal strong integer math performance at 32323, floating point math at 42440, and extended instructions at 13262. Data compression scores 148779, while data encryption reaches 10984. Random string sorting delivers 18038, and find prime numbers yields a score of 110. The PassMark multi-thread score is 15450, and the single-thread score is 4045. Physics testing produces 1221.

Without corresponding benchmarks for the Core Ultra 5 125UL, no direct performance comparison can be drawn from the database. The Core Ultra 5 125UL's higher core count and larger cache suggest it may perform differently in multi-threaded workloads, but the recorded data does not support any quantitative claim.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields in the database.

Cores and Threads: The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has 12 cores and 14 threads.

Clock Speeds: The Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz.

Process Node: The Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process. The Core Ultra 5 125UL uses a 7 nm process.

Socket: The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516. The Core Ultra 5 125UL uses Intel Socket 1851.

Cache: The Core 5 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3.

Memory Support: The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 125UL supports DDR5 (dependent on motherboard) with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

PCIe: The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4, 6 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 125UL provides Gen 4, 8 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated Graphics: The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 125UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU.

Market Segment: The Core 5 320 is classified as Mobile. The Core Ultra 5 125UL is classified as Desktop.

Release Date: The Core 5 320 has a release date of 2026-04-15. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has a release date of 2024-04-07.

Launch MSRP: The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has a launch MSRP of $309.

Part Number: The Core 5 320 carries part number SAE3H. The Core Ultra 5 125UL carries part number SRN96.

Series and Generation: The Core 5 320 has no listed series, with generation "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)". The Core Ultra 5 125UL is in the Core Ultra Series 1, with generation "Ultra 5 (Meteor Lake-PS)".

Architecture and Codename: The Core 5 320 has no architecture listed but uses codename Wildcat Lake. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has architecture Meteor Lake and codename Meteor Lake-PS.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides a clear picture for the Intel Core 5 320, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL lacks recorded measurements. Based on the available specifications, each processor has distinct strengths.

The Core 5 320 wins on raw clock speed and process technology. Its boost clock of 4.60 GHz exceeds the Core Ultra 5 125UL's 4.30 GHz, and its 3 nm process node represents a newer manufacturing generation than the 7 nm node on the Core Ultra 5 125UL. The Core 5 320's single-threaded performance is evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1926 and PassMark single-thread score of 4045. Its average benchmark score of 18023 places it at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals all within one percentage point.

The Core Ultra 5 125UL wins on parallel processing resources and memory throughput. Its 12 cores and 14 threads provide substantially more parallelism than the Core 5 320's 6 cores and 6 threads. The 12 MB of shared L3 cache doubles the Core 5 320's 6 MB allocation. The dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth is significantly wider than the single-channel 59.7 GB/s on the Core 5 320. Its 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU also exceed the Core 5 320's 6 lanes.

The use-case split follows these hardware differences. The Core 5 320 suits workloads that favor high clock speeds and modern process efficiency, such as lightly threaded applications or tasks where single-core responsiveness dominates. Its mobile classification and BGA 1516 socket indicate deployment in compact or portable systems where the 15 W TDP aligns with constrained thermal envelopes.

The Core Ultra 5 125UL targets desktop environments where multi-threaded workloads benefit from 14 threads and 12 MB of shared cache. Its dual-channel memory architecture supports higher bandwidth applications, and its 8 PCIe lanes provide additional connectivity for expansion. The 15 W TDP matches the Core 5 320, but the desktop socket allows for different system designs.

The database records no wins for either processor in head-to-head testing, as no such tests exist in the measurements. The performance relationship between these two parts remains speculative beyond the specification sheet. The Core 5 320's active benchmark presence and 72nd percentile ranking contrast with the Core Ultra 5 125UL's 50th percentile ranking and zero average score, but the latter reflects missing data rather than measured inferiority.