Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the Intel Core 5 320 as the stronger performer in this pairing, despite its lower core and thread counts. The Core 5 320 holds a 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL sits at the 50th percentile. The Core 5 320 posts an average benchmark score of 18023 across its suite, whereas the Ultra 5 135UL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, resulting in an average score of 0. This makes direct performance comparison impossible for the Ultra 5 135UL, and the available data indicates the Core 5 320 is the only one of the two with verified compute results.

The Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Ultra 5 135UL uses a 7 nm node. The Core 5 320 also delivers a higher boost clock at 4.60 GHz versus 4.40 GHz for the Ultra 5 135UL. However, the Ultra 5 135UL counters with more cores, 12 versus 6, and more threads, 14 versus 6. It also features a larger shared L3 cache at 12 MB versus 6 MB, plus dual-channel memory support and higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s compared to 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 320.

Users seeking verified single-thread and multi-thread performance should select the Core 5 320, as it is the sole chip with benchmark data. Those prioritizing core count, cache capacity, and memory bandwidth on paper would look to the Ultra 5 135UL, but its lack of recorded scores means its real-world behavior cannot be confirmed from the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL boosts to 4.40 GHz.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 135UL has 12 cores and 14 threads. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which chip has more cache?

A: The Core Ultra 5 135UL has a shared 12 MB L3 cache and 2 MB L2 per core. The Core 5 320 has a shared 6 MB L3 cache and 2.5 MB L2 total.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, both the Core 5 320 and the Core Ultra 5 135UL have ECC memory support set to false.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Core Ultra 5 135UL uses a 7 nm process node.

Q: Which processor has recorded benchmark results?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 320 has benchmark scores in the database. The Core Ultra 5 135UL has an empty benchmark list and an average benchmark score of 0.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 320 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename, fabricated on a 3 nm process node by Intel. It integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Its memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a single-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The PCIe configuration is Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The L1 cache is 192 KB, L2 cache is 2.5 MB, and L3 cache is 6 MB shared. The socket is Intel BGA 1516.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL belongs to the Core Ultra Series 1, using the Meteor Lake architecture with the Meteor Lake-PS codename. It is fabricated on a 7 nm process node. Its integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. Memory support is DDR5, with the note that it depends on the motherboard. The memory bus is dual-channel, and the memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The L1 cache is listed as 112 KB per core, L2 cache as 2 MB per core, and L3 cache as 12 MB shared. The socket is Intel Socket 1851.

The process node difference is significant: 3 nm for the Core 5 320 versus 7 nm for the Ultra 5 135UL. The integrated graphics solutions differ as well, with Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) on the Core 5 320 and Arc Xe-LPG 64EU on the Ultra 5 135UL. The memory architecture also diverges, with single-channel versus dual-channel support, which partially explains the bandwidth gap between 59.7 GB/s and 89.6 GB/s. The cache layout is fundamentally different: the Core 5 320 lists a total L2 of 2.5 MB, while the Ultra 5 135UL lists 2 MB per core.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, whereas the Ultra 5 135UL has 12 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are close, 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320 and 1.60 GHz for the Ultra 5 135UL, but boost clocks differ, 4.60 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. The Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process node; the Ultra 5 135UL uses 7 nm. The socket types are not shared: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 320, Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 5 135UL.

Cache specifications differ in structure. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 135UL has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Memory support shows the Core 5 320 with DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Ultra 5 135UL lists DDR5 with motherboard dependence. Memory bus width differs: single-channel for the Core 5 320, dual-channel for the Ultra 5 135UL. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s.

PCIe lane counts differ, 6 lanes for the Core 5 320 and 8 lanes for the Ultra 5 135UL, both at Gen 4. Integrated graphics are distinct as well. The market segments differ: the Core 5 320 is listed as Mobile, while the Ultra 5 135UL is listed as Desktop. Release dates differ, with the Core 5 320 dated 2026-04-15 and the Ultra 5 135UL dated 2024-04-07. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 320 is $340, and the launch MSRP for the Ultra 5 135UL is $331. The part numbers are SAE3H for the Core 5 320 and SRN97 for the Ultra 5 135UL. Both have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors. The wins counters are set to 0 for both the Core 5 320 and the Ultra 5 135UL. Consequently, no direct comparison of benchmark scores can be made between the two chips from the recorded data.

The Core 5 320 does have a full suite of individual benchmark scores. In Cinebench R15, it scores 1054 in multicore and 276 in singlecore. In Cinebench R20, the scores are 5462 multicore and 771 singlecore. Cinebench R23 results show 6197 multicore and 1926 singlecore. PassMark results include multithread at 15450, single thread at 4045, integer math at 32323, floating point math at 42440, data compression at 148779, data encryption at 10984, extended instructions at 13262, find prime numbers at 110, physics at 1221, and random string sorting at 18038.

The nearest rivals for the Core 5 320 provide context for its standing. The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 has an average score of 17994, which is 0.2 percent lower than the Core 5 320's 18023. The Intel Core 5 120U scores 17898, 0.7 percent lower. The Intel Core i5-1334U scores 18154, which is 0.7 percent higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT scores 17891, also 0.7 percent lower. These figures place the Core 5 320 in a narrow band around these established processors, with a performance spread of roughly one percent across all four rivals.

The Ultra 5 135UL has no scores to analyze. Its nearest rivals list is empty, and its average benchmark score is 0. The percentile rank of 50 places it at the midpoint of all CPUs, but without actual benchmark data, this percentile cannot be substantiated by measured results. The Core 5 320, by contrast, has a percentile rank of 72, which is supported by its 17 recorded benchmark scores.

The absence of head-to-head data means the analysis must rely on the specifications and the single chip's benchmark suite. The Core 5 320's scores indicate strong single-thread performance, with a Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 1926 and a PassMark single thread score of 4045. Its multicore results, such as 6197 in Cinebench R23 and 15450 in PassMark multithread, reflect its 6-core, 6-thread configuration. The Ultra 5 135UL's 12-core, 14-thread design would theoretically offer more parallel throughput, but no recorded measurements confirm this.

The Core 5 320 also shows a higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz, which likely contributes to its single-thread scores. The Ultra 5 135UL's boost clock is 4.40 GHz, 0.20 GHz lower. The memory bandwidth advantage belongs to the Ultra 5 135UL at 89.6 GB/s, which could benefit memory-intensive workloads, but again, no benchmark data supports this in practice.

The process node advantage for the Core 5 320, 3 nm versus 7 nm, suggests better power efficiency per transistor, though both chips share a 15 W TDP. The Core 5 320's integrated graphics are Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 5 135UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU, but no graphics benchmarks are recorded for either.

In summary, the data confirms the Core 5 320 as the only chip with measurable performance, and its results place it slightly above several comparable processors from both AMD and Intel. The Ultra 5 135UL remains unverified in the database, so its specifications can be listed but not tested.