Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data delivers a one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark entries against the Intel Core 5 320. No benchmark in the database favors the Core 5 320. The margins, however, vary significantly by workload type, and that variance reveals the structural differences between the two chips.

The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Core Ultra 5 235H scores 3613, while the Core 5 320 scores 1926. That is a 46.7% advantage for the Ultra part. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows a similar proportional gap: 1517 versus 771, a 49.2% difference. The gap narrows considerably in PassMark's single-thread test, where the Ultra 5 235H scores 4359 against 4045, a modest 7.2% lead. This suggests that the Ultra part's higher boost clock, 5.00 GHz against 4.60 GHz, helps in lightly threaded work, but the architectural efficiency advantage shrinks when the workload is simpler.

Multi-core results expand the gap dramatically. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Core Ultra 5 235H at 25598, against 6197 for the Core 5 320, a 75.8% deficit for the smaller chip. Cinebench R20 multi-core tells a similar story: 10751 versus 5462, a 49.2% gap. The R15 multi-core test shows 2580 versus 1054, a 59.1% difference. The pattern is clear: when all cores engage, the Core Ultra 5 235H's additional cores and threads dominate.

PassMark workloads reinforce this trend. The data compression test shows 301979 for the Ultra 5 235H versus 148779 for the Core 5 320, a 50.7% gap. Integer math delivers 74247 versus 32323, a 56.5% lead. Floating point math shows 93509 versus 42440, a 54.6% gap. The encryption test records 23121 against 10984, a 52.5% difference. Prime number finding shows 239 versus 110, a 54% gap. Random string sorting records 36208 versus 18038, a 50.2% difference. Extended instructions show 23354 versus 13262, a 43.2% gap. Even the physics test, which often behaves differently, shows a 38.5% lead for the Ultra part: 1985 versus 1221.

The smallest multi-core gap appears in PassMark multithread, where the Ultra 5 235H scores 30091 against 15450, a 48.7% difference. The fact that the gap never drops below 38.5% in any multi-threaded test indicates that the Core Ultra 5 235H's core count advantage is consistent across workload types, not just in synthetic render tests.

The average benchmark score in the database confirms the overall positioning. The Core Ultra 5 235H averages 37522 points, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 320 averages 18023 points, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 235H include the Intel Core i9-13900HK, with an average score of 37425 and a delta of 0.3%, and the Intel Core i5-13600K at 37685 with a delta of -0.4%. The Core 5 320's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17994 (0.2% delta) and the Intel Core 5 120U at 17898 (0.7% delta). The gap between these two chips is not a subtle margin; it is a full performance tier apart.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a manufacturer and a process node, but diverge sharply in almost every other architectural dimension. Both use a 3 nm process, but the Core 5 320 is built by Intel's own foundry, while the Core Ultra 5 235H uses TSMC as its foundry. The codenames differ as well: the Core 5 320 is based on Wildcat Lake, while the Core Ultra 5 235H uses the Arrow Lake-H design, part of the Core Ultra Series 2.

Core and thread counts represent the most consequential difference. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 235H has 14 cores and 14 threads. The latter also carries a higher base clock at 2.40 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. The thermal design power reflects this: the Core 5 320 is rated at 15 W, while the Core Ultra 5 235H is rated at 28 W.

Cache hierarchy differs substantially. The Core 5 320 has a 192 KB L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235H lists 192 KB per core for L1, 3 MB per core for L2, and 18 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference alone, 6 MB versus 18 MB, helps explain the Ultra part's stronger sustained multi-threaded performance in the recorded benchmarks.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 5 320 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 235H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, and neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 235H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well, with the Core 5 320 using Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 235H uses Arc Graphics 140T.

The sockets differ, which means these are not interchangeable in any system: the Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 235H uses Intel BGA 2049. Both are mobile-market parts, both are actively in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ, with the Core Ultra 5 235H appearing in January 2025 and the Core 5 320 in April 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data does not show any test where the Core 5 320 wins. The Core Ultra 5 235H holds the advantage in every recorded workload. The question is not which chip wins, but whether the Core 5 320 has any domain where the gap narrows enough to matter.

The tightest margin is in single-threaded PassMark, where the Core Ultra 5 235H leads by only 7.2%. That is the only test where the Core 5 320 comes within single digits. Lightly threaded applications that do not stress the cache hierarchy or memory bandwidth may see a smaller real-world difference between the two. The Core 5 320's 6 MB L3 cache and single-channel memory are less of a handicap in such workloads.

The widest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 5 235H leads by 75.8%. Long-running render workloads, video encoding, and any sustained all-core computation will heavily favor the Core Ultra 5 235H. Its 14 cores, 18 MB L3, and dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s provide a structural advantage that no amount of clock speed tuning on the Core 5 320 can overcome.

The physics test shows the narrowest multi-core gap at 38.5%. Simulation workloads with irregular memory access patterns may compress the difference slightly, but the Core Ultra 5 235H still holds a commanding lead. The data compression test, at 50.7%, and the multithread test, at 48.7%, sit in the middle of the range. The Core 5 320 is not a weak processor in absolute terms; its 72nd percentile ranking and average score of 18023 place it in the same territory as the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, which scores 17891 with a 0.7% delta. But the Core Ultra 5 235H sits at the 85th percentile, alongside desktop-class parts like the Intel Core i5-13600K.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two chips?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 5 235H scores 25598 against 6197, a 75.8% lead.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two chips?

A: The smallest gap is in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Core Ultra 5 235H scores 4359 against 4045, a 7.2% lead.

Q: Do both processors use the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core 5 320 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 5 235H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

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

A: Both use a 3 nm process, but the Core 5 320 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 235H is fabricated by TSMC.

The Verdict

The data positions these two processors in different performance classes. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins every single benchmark recorded in the database, with margins ranging from 7.2% in single-threaded PassMark to 75.8% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its 14 cores, 18 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s, and 5.00 GHz boost clock combine to deliver an average score of 37522, placing it at the 85th percentile. The Core 5 320, with 6 cores, 6 MB L3, single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s, and a 4.60 GHz boost clock, averages 18023 and sits at the 72nd percentile.

The Core 5 320 also carries a launch MSRP of $340, while the Core Ultra 5 235H has no listed launch MSRP in the database. The thermal design power differs, 15 W for the Core 5 320 versus 28 W for the Core Ultra 5 235H, which may matter for system-level design choices. The Core 5 320 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket and the Core Ultra 5 235H uses Intel BGA 2049, so platform compatibility determines which chip a system can accept.

For workloads dominated by sustained multi-threaded computation, the recorded data favors the Core Ultra 5 235H without qualification. For lightly threaded tasks, the Core 5 320 comes closer, but it still loses every recorded test. The benchmark database shows no scenario where the Core 5 320 takes the lead.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core Ultra 5 235H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 14 |

| Threads | 6 | 14 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 3 MB per core |

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

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

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-12 |