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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records a decisive performance gap between the Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX. Across all 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core Ultra 5 235HX records the higher score, with no wins registered for the Core 5 320. The largest single margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 34,731 versus 6,197 for the Core 5 320, a delta of 82.2% in favor of the Ultra part. This is the widest performance split in the entire dataset, indicating a fundamental difference in multi-threaded throughput capability.

The single-core comparison tells a similar but less extreme story. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 235HX delivers 4,903 points compared to 1,926 points for the Core 5 320, a 60.7% advantage. PassMark single-thread results show a narrower gap: 4,683 versus 4,045, a 13.6% difference. This suggests that while the Core Ultra 5 235HX holds a clear lead in lightly threaded workloads, the advantage shrinks considerably when only one core is active, which points to differences in boost behavior and core architecture rather than sheer clock dominance.

Cinebench R15 and R20 results follow the same pattern. In R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 3,500 against 1,054 for the Core 5 320, a 69.9% delta. The R15 single-core result shows 494 versus 276, a 44.1% gap. In R20, the multi-core scores are 14,587 versus 5,462, a 62.6% delta, and single-core scores are 2,059 versus 771, also a 62.6% delta. The consistency of these margins across Cinebench versions indicates that the performance difference is not workload-specific but reflects a broad architectural capability gap.

PassMark integer math shows the Core Ultra 5 235HX at 97,177 versus 32,323 for the Core 5 320, a 66.7% delta. Floating point math follows with 129,819 versus 42,440, a 67.3% delta. Data compression results show 426,417 versus 148,779, a 65.1% delta, while data encryption records 32,697 versus 10,984, a 66.4% delta. Extended instructions score 34,808 versus 13,262, a 61.9% delta. Prime number finding shows 361 versus 110, a 69.5% delta. Random string sorting delivers 50,929 versus 18,038, a 64.6% delta. Physics simulation scores 2,550 versus 1,221, a 52.1% delta, which is the smallest multi-threaded margin in the dataset. PassMark multi-thread overall records 40,849 versus 15,450, a 62.2% delta.

The average benchmark score in the database places the Core Ultra 5 235HX at 52,073, compared to 18,023 for the Core 5 320. The Core Ultra 5 235HX sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 320 lands in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 235HX include the AMD EPYC 8124P at 52,121 (0.1% higher), the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X at 51,947 (0.2% lower), the Intel Core i7-14700 at 52,301 (0.4% higher), and the Intel Core i9-13900F at 51,730 (0.7% lower). For the Core 5 320, the nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17,994 (0.2% lower), the Intel Core 5 120U at 17,898 (0.7% lower), the Intel Core i5-1334U at 18,154 (0.7% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17,891 (0.7% lower).

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark category where the Intel Core 5 320 records a win. Every recorded test, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark math and data processing workloads, favors the Core Ultra 5 235HX. The closest contest is PassMark single-thread performance, where the Core Ultra 5 235HX leads by only 13.6%. This indicates that in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, the Core 5 320 comes within a modest margin of the Ultra part, although it does not surpass it.

The Core Ultra 5 235HX demonstrates its largest advantages in multi-threaded workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows an 82.2% delta, the largest in the dataset, which points to heavy rendering or batch processing tasks as the clearest differentiator. The physics simulation test shows a 52.1% delta, the smallest multi-threaded margin, suggesting that workloads with less parallel scaling may reduce the gap somewhat. Nevertheless, the overall pattern is unambiguous: the Core Ultra 5 235HX delivers substantially higher throughput across all measured categories.

For use-case analysis, the Core 5 320 remains competitive in single-threaded scenarios, where its 4,045 PassMark single-thread score trails the Ultra part by only 13.6%. This makes it a plausible option for applications that depend on per-core responsiveness rather than raw multi-threaded output. However, the Core Ultra 5 235HX holds a commanding lead in data encryption, integer math, floating point math, and data compression, which are common in scientific computing, financial modeling, and media processing. The Core Ultra 5 235HX also leads in extended instructions by 61.9%, which benefits workloads that leverage modern SIMD instruction sets.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Core Ultra 5 235HX at the 91st percentile sits well above the Core 5 320 at the 72nd percentile. In the context of the nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 5 235HX performs on par with desktop-class processors like the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Intel Core i9-13900F, with deltas under 1%. The Core 5 320, by contrast, aligns with older mid-range parts like the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core i5-1334U, with deltas under 1% in either direction.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their core configurations. The Intel Core 5 320 uses 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX uses 14 cores and 14 threads, also without hyper-threading, but with more than double the physical core count. This core count difference directly explains the multi-threaded benchmark results, as the Ultra part has more parallel execution resources available.

The Core 5 320 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename and the Arrow Lake architecture. Both processors are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Core 5 320 is produced by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX is produced by TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 235HX also records a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 320 does not have recorded transistor or die size data in the database.

Cache hierarchies show notable differences. 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 235HX has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra part is larger, and the shared L3 pool is four times the size of the Core 5 320's L3. This larger cache hierarchy likely contributes to the Ultra part's advantage in data-heavy workloads, where more working set can reside closer to the cores.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units. The memory support also diverges: the Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX supports DDR5 only. The memory bus width differs, with the Core 5 320 using single-channel and the Core Ultra 5 235HX using dual-channel, which affects memory bandwidth as detailed in the specification differences below.

Specification Differences

The base clock speeds differ significantly: the Core 5 320 runs at 1.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX runs at 2.90 GHz. The boost clocks also differ: 4.60 GHz for the Core 5 320 versus 5.10 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235HX. The thermal design power shows a substantial gap, with the Core 5 320 rated at 15 watts and the Core Ultra 5 235HX rated at 55 watts. This higher power envelope allows the Ultra part to sustain higher clocks and feed its additional cores.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX uses Intel BGA 2114. The PCIe support differs as well: the Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 235HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Memory bandwidth is recorded at 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 320 and 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 235HX, a direct consequence of the single-channel versus dual-channel memory bus.

The multiplier unlock status differs: the Core 5 320 has a locked multiplier, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates also differ, with the Core Ultra 5 235HX released on 2025-01-12 and the Core 5 320 released on 2026-04-15. The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The part numbers are SAE3H for the Core 5 320 and SRVFL for the Core Ultra 5 235HX. Both processors are marked as Active in production status and target the Mobile market segment. Neither supports ECC memory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 34,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to 6,197 for the Intel Core 5 320, a difference of 82.2% in favor of the Ultra part.

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

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 4,683 versus 4,045 for the Intel Core 5 320, a 13.6% difference. This is the smallest margin in the entire benchmark dataset.

Q: What core count does each processor use?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX uses 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: Do the two processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Intel Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX supports DDR5 only. The Core 5 320 uses a single-channel memory bus, and the Core Ultra 5 235HX uses a dual-channel bus.

Q: What are the cache sizes for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: How does the thermal design power compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 is rated at 15 watts TDP, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX is rated at 55 watts TDP. The Ultra part also has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz versus 1.50 GHz and a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 4.60 GHz.