Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a decisive split between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 320 claims a single victory. The margins, however, vary enormously by workload type.

Starting with multi-threaded performance, the Core Ultra 5 225F delivers a dominant showing. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 16,467 against the Core 5 320's 6,197, a 62.4% advantage. The gap is similar in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Ultra 5 225F posts 2,660 versus 1,054, a 60.4% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the Ultra ahead by 50.6%, with scores of 11,059 and 5,462 respectively. PassMark Multi-Thread confirms the pattern: 31,004 for the Ultra 5 225F versus 15,450 for the Core 5 320, a 50.2% lead.

Single-thread results are far closer, and this is where the Core 5 320 records its only win. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 5 320 scores 1,926, edging out the Ultra 5 225F at 1,893, a 1.7% margin. That is a narrow victory, but it indicates the Wildcat Lake core design holds its own in lightly threaded workloads. Elsewhere in single-thread tests, the Ultra 5 225F pulls ahead: Cinebench R15 single-core shows 287 versus 276, a 3.8% lead, and Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1,561 versus 771, a 50.6% advantage. PassMark Single-Thread also favors the Ultra 5 225F at 4,397 against 4,045, an 8% difference.

The specialized PassMark workloads all favor the Ultra 5 225F, often by roughly half. Data compression scores 310,843 versus 148,779, a 52.1% gap. Data encryption shows 22,648 against 10,984, a 51.5% difference. Extended instructions land at 28,027 versus 13,262, a 52.7% gap. Floating point math reaches 92,554 versus 42,440, a 54.1% lead. Integer math shows 66,417 versus 32,323, a 51.3% difference. The largest margin appears in the prime number search test, where the Ultra 5 225F scores 352 against 110, a 68.7% advantage. Random string sorting follows a similar path: 37,325 versus 18,038, a 51.7% gap. Even the physics test, which often behaves differently, favors the Ultra 5 225F at 2,430 versus 1,221, a 49.8% lead.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 5 225F averages 37,313, while the Core 5 320 averages 18,023. That places the Ultra 5 225F in the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database, versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 320. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 225F include the Intel Core i9-13900HK at 37,425 (0.3% higher) and the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H at 37,161 (0.4% lower). The Core 5 320 sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17,994 (0.2% higher) and the Intel Core 5 120U at 17,898 (0.7% higher).

The Verdict

The benchmark data points toward separate roles for these two chips. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F is the stronger processor by a wide margin in almost every recorded test. Its multi-threaded results are roughly double those of the Core 5 320 across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and the PassMark suite. Its single-thread results are also ahead, except for the narrow Cinebench R23 single-core test where the Core 5 320 wins by 1.7%. Anyone selecting between the two on raw performance should look at the Ultra 5 225F, which also holds a higher percentile ranking in the database, 85th versus 72nd.

The Core 5 320 is a mobile part, built for a different physical environment. It uses a 15 W TDP and an Intel BGA 1516 socket, so it belongs in compact systems where power draw and heat output are constrained. Its single-core Cinebench R23 result, 1,926, is actually higher than the Ultra 5 225F's 1,893, which means it does not sacrifice all light-threaded responsiveness despite the large multi-core deficit. For a workload that rarely uses more than one or two threads, the Core 5 320 can keep pace, and in that one test it comes out ahead.

The Ultra 5 225F, by contrast, is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, a dual-channel memory bus, and a Gen 5 PCIe interface. Its 10 cores and 10 threads give it a structural advantage in parallel work, and the recorded scores confirm it. The multi-threaded Cinebench R23 result of 16,467 is more than 2.6 times the Core 5 320's 6,197. The PassMark physics score of 2,430 versus 1,221 reinforces that. The data does not suggest the Core 5 320 can compensate for that gap in any multi-threaded scenario.

There is no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the Core 5 320 beats the Ultra 5 225F except the single Cinebench R23 single-core test. Even there, the margin is only 33 points. For desktops, the Ultra 5 225F is the clear choice from the data. For mobile systems where the socket and power envelope match, the Core 5 320 offers competitive single-thread performance and a much lower TDP, but users must accept roughly half the multi-threaded throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Core 5 320 uses a codename of Wildcat Lake and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Core Ultra 5 225F uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core 5 320 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 225F is fabricated by TSMC.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, all of equal type. The Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. Neither processor enables simultaneous multi-threading, so thread counts match core counts for both. The additional 4 cores in the Ultra 5 225F explain much of the multi-threaded performance gap.

Cache hierarchies also differ. 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 225F lists 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 difference, 6 MB versus 20 MB, is substantial and likely contributes to the data-heavy workload results such as compression and encryption.

The integrated graphics situation is a major divergence. The Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. That makes the Ultra 5 225F dependent on a discrete GPU, which is consistent with its desktop positioning. The Core 5 320 can drive a display on its own, which is more typical for a mobile part.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 5 225F supports DDR5 only. The Core 5 320 uses a single-channel memory bus, while the Core Ultra 5 225F uses a dual-channel bus. Recorded memory bandwidth reflects this: 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 320 versus 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 5 225F.

PCIe capabilities are not equal. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 225F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. That is a significant platform feature difference, particularly for desktop users who need high-bandwidth expansion slots or storage.

The Core Ultra 5 225F also carries published transistor and die size figures: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 320 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. The market segments confirm the intended use: mobile for the Core 5 320, desktop for the Core Ultra 5 225F.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear separation between the two. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads; the Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. Base clocks differ: 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320 versus 3.30 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 225F. Boost clocks also differ: 4.60 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. TDP is a major differentiator, with the Core 5 320 rated at 15 W and the Core Ultra 5 225F at 65 W.

Sockets are incompatible. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, which is a soldered mobile socket. The Core Ultra 5 225F uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The process node is the same, 3 nm for both, but the foundry differs, Intel versus TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 225F has a series designation, Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 5 320 has no series listed.

Cache values differ across all levels. L1 is 192 KB for the Core 5 320, but listed as 192 KB per core for the Ultra 5 225F. L2 is 2.5 MB versus 3 MB per core. L3 is 6 MB shared versus 20 MB shared. Memory bus width differs, single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe generation and lane count differ, Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are present on the Core 5 320, absent on the Core Ultra 5 225F. Release dates differ, with the Core 5 320 dated 2026-04-15 and the Core Ultra 5 225F dated 2025-01-06. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 320 is $340, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 225F is $231.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225F scores 16,467 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 5 320 scores 6,197. The delta is 62.4% in favor of the Ultra 5 225F.

Q: Did the Core 5 320 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Core 5 320 wins Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 1,926 against 1,893 for the Core Ultra 5 225F, a 1.7% margin.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 320 supports 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel memory bus. The Core Ultra 5 225F supports 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Are both processors built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use a 3 nm process node. The Core 5 320 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 225F is fabricated by TSMC.