Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core 5 320 trailing in every single test. There is no recorded metric where the Core 5 320 comes out ahead, so the analysis below focuses on the magnitude of the Ultra 5 225's advantage across different workload types.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multicore. The Core Ultra 5 225 scores 25,891, while the Core 5 320 scores 6,197. That is a 76.1% deficit for the smaller chip. The R15 multicore test tells a similar story: 2,609 for the Ultra 5 225 versus 1,054 for the Core 5 320, a 59.6% difference. The R20 multicore gap is narrower at 13.5% (6,317 versus 5,462), which is surprising given how large the R23 delta is. The data shows that multicore performance scaling is inconsistent across Cinebench versions, but the Ultra 5 225 leads in all of them.

Single-core results are closer but still favor the Ultra 5 225 by a meaningful margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 225 scores 3,655 against 1,926 for the Core 5 320, a 47.3% advantage. The R20 single-core test shows a 13.5% gap (891 versus 771), and R15 single-core shows a 25% gap (368 versus 276). The PassMark single-thread test narrows the gap further: 4,412 versus 4,045, only an 8.3% difference. That result indicates the Core 5 320 has competitive single-thread capability relative to its larger sibling, but it still loses.

Memory-sensitive workloads show wide margins. The PassMark data compression test scores 302,811 for the Ultra 5 225 versus 148,779 for the Core 5 320, a 50.9% gap. Data encryption shows 22,285 versus 10,984, a 50.7% deficit. Random string sorting, another memory-heavy test, scores 36,590 versus 18,038, also a 50.7% gap. These consistent ~50% deltas reflect the dual-channel memory bus and higher memory bandwidth of the Ultra 5 225.

Math workloads follow the same pattern. Floating point math scores 92,038 versus 42,440, a 53.9% advantage. Integer math scores 65,345 versus 32,323, a 50.5% advantage. Extended instructions score 27,162 versus 13,262, a 51.2% gap. Prime number finding shows the largest percentage difference of any PassMark test: 358 versus 110, a 69.3% deficit for the Core 5 320.

The multithread PassMark score of 30,459 versus 15,450 (49.3% gap) and the physics score of 2,342 versus 1,221 (47.9% gap) round out the picture. The average benchmark score tells the overall story: 36,938 for the Ultra 5 225 versus 18,023 for the Core 5 320. The Ultra 5 225 sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which chip has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36,938, more than double the Core 5 320's 18,023. The Ultra 5 225 also holds the 85th percentile rank among all CPUs, versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 320.

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

A: The closest recorded result is the PassMark single-thread test, where the Ultra 5 225 scores 4,412 against 4,045 for the Core 5 320, an 8.3% gap. Cinebench single-core results show a larger spread, ranging from 13.5% in R20 to 47.3% in R23.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither chip uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Q: Are these processors on the same manufacturing node?

A: Both are listed as being on a 3 nm process node. However, the Core Ultra 5 225 uses TSMC as its foundry with an Arrow Lake architecture, while the Core 5 320 uses Intel's own foundry with a Wildcat Lake codename.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 has a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 320 has a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 5 225 also supports DDR5 only, while the Core 5 320 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Which chip places closer to comparable rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F with a 0% delta, followed by the Ryzen 5 5500X3D at -0.2%. The Core 5 320's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 0.2% delta, with the Intel Core i5-1334U at -0.7%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core Ultra 5 225 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, which the database places in the Core 5 generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: TSMC produces the Ultra 5 225, while Intel's own fabs produce the Core 5 320.

The transistor and die details are only recorded for the Ultra 5 225. It carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Core 5 320, so a direct comparison on those physical characteristics is not possible from the data.

Cache organization differs substantially. The Core Ultra 5 225 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB of L1 cache total, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core versus total L1 notation makes a direct L1 comparison difficult, but the L2 and L3 differences are clear: the Ultra 5 225 has 3 MB per core L2 against 2.5 MB total L2 for the Core 5 320, and 20 MB shared L3 against 6 MB shared L3.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core Ultra 5 225 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Neither chip supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity is another major architectural split. The Core Ultra 5 225 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with only 6 CPU lanes. This lane count difference is significant for desktop expandability.

The Core Ultra 5 225 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851. The Core 5 320 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1516. The market segment split explains many of the architectural choices: the desktop chip prioritizes bandwidth and core count, while the mobile chip prioritizes lower power in a compact package.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is core count. The Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads, while the Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Both are locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking via multiplier adjustment.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 5 225 on both ends. Its base clock is 3.30 GHz against 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320, and its boost clock is 4.90 GHz against 4.60 GHz. The base clock gap is particularly large, reflecting the different power envelopes.

Thermal design power differs by a wide margin. The Core Ultra 5 225 is rated at 65 W TDP, while the Core 5 320 is rated at 15 W TDP. This 50 W difference explains the base clock disparity and the multicore performance gap.

Memory support shows the Ultra 5 225 with DDR5 only and a dual-channel bus at 102.4 GB/s. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus at 59.7 GB/s. The bandwidth difference is roughly 1.7 times in favor of the Ultra 5 225.

PCIe generation and lane count differ sharply. The Ultra 5 225 runs Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Core 5 320 runs Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. This affects possible GPU and NVMe configurations.

Release dates are recorded. The Core Ultra 5 225 launched on 2025-01-06. The Core 5 320 launched on 2026-04-15. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 225 is $246. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 320 is $340.

The Core Ultra 5 225 has a recorded part number of SRQCZSRVF7 and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family. The Core 5 320 has part number SAE3H. Both are marked as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Core Ultra 5 225 is the stronger processor in every measured benchmark, with an average score of 36,938 against 18,023 for the Core 5 320. It holds a higher percentile rank (85th versus 72nd), has more cores, higher clocks, more cache, and more memory bandwidth.

The Core 5 320's advantages are limited to power and platform characteristics. It has a 15 W TDP against 65 W for the Ultra 5 225, a BGA socket for soldered mobile installation, and support for LPDDR5X memory. Its launch MSRP of $340 is higher than the Ultra 5 225's $246, so the price data does not favor the smaller chip either.

For users who need raw compute, the Core Ultra 5 225 is the obvious choice. The 76.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and the 50.9% lead in data compression are not marginal differences. For users constrained by power draw or requiring a mobile form factor, the Core 5 320 exists in a different category entirely. The comparison is less about which chip is better and more about which platform the user needs.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core Ultra 5 225: The desktop chip wins every recorded benchmark. Its largest margins are in Cinebench R23 multicore (76.1% ahead), prime number finding (69.3% ahead), and Cinebench R15 multicore (59.6% ahead). It dominates memory-intensive workloads like data compression (50.9%), encryption (50.7%), and random string sorting (50.7%). Its smallest win is in PassMark single-thread at 8.3%. The 10-core, 10-thread configuration with 20 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and Gen 5 PCIe lanes makes it the stronger choice for desktop workloads that scale with cores, cache, and bandwidth.

Intel Core 5 320: The mobile chip does not win a single recorded benchmark. Its strengths are qualitative and platform-based. The 15 W TDP suits compact, battery-powered systems. The BGA 1516 socket and support for LPDDR5X memory target ultrathin laptops. The Wildcat Lake architecture with Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe cores) provides integrated graphics in a low-power package. Within the recorded data, its closest performance to the Ultra 5 225 comes in single-thread tests, where the 8.3% PassMark gap shows that its 4.60 GHz boost clock keeps it competitive for lightly threaded tasks despite the core count disadvantage.