Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235T Comparison
Intel Core 5 320
Core Ultra 5 235T
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235T
The Verdict
The benchmark data in this comparison is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T wins every single one of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 320 records zero wins across all benchmarks. The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Core Ultra 5 235T posts 38,561 versus 18,023 for the Core 5 320. That is more than double the overall average. The percentile ranking reinforces this gap. The Core Ultra 5 235T sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd. Neither processor is a weak performer in absolute terms, but the distance between them is substantial.
The data suggests two very different market positions. The Core Ultra 5 235T is a desktop part with a 65 TDP and 14 cores, while the Core 5 320 is a mobile part with a 15 TDP and 6 cores. The Core 5 320 is not designed to compete with the Core Ultra 5 235T on raw throughput. It is a low-power mobile processor. The Core Ultra 5 235T is a mainstream desktop processor. Anyone choosing between these two based on benchmark scores alone would select the Core Ultra 5 235T in every scenario. The only meaningful reason to pick the Core 5 320 is the power envelope and the mobile form factor, which the data supports through the TDP figures and the socket types.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 5 235T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 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 235T is fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 235T also has published transistor and die size data: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 320 entry does not list transistor count or die size in the database.
Core counts differ sharply. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 235T has 14 cores and 14 threads, also without SMT. The thread count matches the core count on both parts. The Core Ultra 5 235T therefore has 8 additional physical cores. This explains much of the multi-threaded performance gap.
Cache hierarchies are also different. 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 235T lists L1 as 192 KB per core and L2 as 3 MB per core, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 difference is large: 24 MB versus 6 MB. That is four times the shared cache on the Core Ultra 5 235T. The per-core L2 configuration on the Core Ultra 5 235T also suggests a more generous cache layout across its 14 cores.
Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 235T supports DDR5 only, but uses a dual-channel memory bus and reaches 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 235T has nearly double the memory bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory.
The integrated graphics are different generations. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 235T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EUs. The PCIe support also differs. The Core 5 320 has Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Core Ultra 5 235T has Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes. The Core Ultra 5 235T offers a newer PCIe generation and far more lanes.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Core Ultra 5 235T dominates every benchmark in the head-to-head table. The largest multi-threaded win comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core Ultra 5 235T scores 26,232 versus 6,197 for the Core 5 320, a delta of negative 76.4 percent from the perspective of the Core 5 320. That means the Core 5 320 trails by roughly three-quarters of the Core Ultra's score. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 11,017 versus 5,462, a 50.4 percent gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core also favors the Core Ultra 5 235T, 2,644 versus 1,054, a 60.1 percent difference.
Single-core performance is closer, but the Core Ultra 5 235T still wins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3,703 versus 1,926, a 48 percent gap. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1,555 versus 771, a 50.4 percent gap. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 373 versus 276, a 26 percent gap. The PassMark single-thread test shows the smallest delta in the entire comparison: 4,339 versus 4,045, only a 6.8 percent difference. That is the narrowest margin recorded across all tests. The single-thread scores indicate that the Core Ultra 5 235T has a meaningful per-core advantage, but not an overwhelming one. The gap widens massively when all cores are engaged.
PassMark workload tests show consistent wins for the Core Ultra 5 235T. Integer math: 84,244 versus 32,323, a 61.6 percent gap. Floating point math: 106,546 versus 42,440, a 60.2 percent gap. Find prime numbers: 318 versus 110, a 65.4 percent gap. Extended instructions: 23,212 versus 13,262, a 42.9 percent gap. Data compression: 295,100 versus 148,779, a 49.6 percent gap. Data encryption: 23,457 versus 10,984, a 53.2 percent gap. Random string sorting: 35,377 versus 18,038, a 49 percent gap. Multithread: 30,918 versus 15,450, exactly a 50 percent gap. Physics: 2,157 versus 1,221, a 43.4 percent gap. The Core 5 320 comes closest to parity in single-threaded work, but still loses every recorded test.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads; the Core Ultra 5 235T has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clock speeds differ: 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320 versus 2.20 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235T. Boost clocks also differ: 4.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. The TDP is dramatically different: 15 watts for the Core 5 320 versus 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 235T.
The socket is different. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket. The Core Ultra 5 235T uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. The market segment confirms this: the Core 5 320 is listed as Mobile, the Core Ultra 5 235T as Desktop.
Memory support differs. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 235T supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 320 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Core Ultra 5 235T uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes.
Cache specifications differ in structure. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB L1 (total listed), 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235T lists L1 as 192 KB per core and L2 as 3 MB per core, with 24 MB shared L3. The integrated graphics are different: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe on the Core 5 320 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EU on the Core Ultra 5 235T.
Release dates differ. The Core Ultra 5 235T was released on 2025-01-06. The Core 5 320 was released on 2026-04-15. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 235T is $247. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 320 is $340. Both processors are locked, with multiplierUnlocked set to false. The part numbers are SRQES for the Core Ultra 5 235T and SAE3H for the Core 5 320. Both are listed as Active in production status.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 5 235T has 8 more physical cores.
Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 5 235T in multi-core rendering?
A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235T scores 26,232 against 6,197 for the Core 5 320. The Core 5 320 trails by 76.4 percent in that test.
Q: Is the Core 5 320 closer to the Core Ultra 5 235T in single-threaded performance?
A: Yes. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4,339 for the Core Ultra 5 235T and 4,045 for the Core 5 320, a delta of only 6.8 percent. That is the smallest gap in the entire benchmark set.
Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?
A: The Core Ultra 5 235T supports 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus. The Core 5 320 supports 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus that accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X.
Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?
A: The Core Ultra 5 235T has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 320 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. That is a fourfold difference.
Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?
A: No. Both the Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T have multiplierUnlocked set to false, meaning neither is an unlocked part.
Q: What is the TDP difference?
A: The Core 5 320 is rated at 15 watts. The Core Ultra 5 235T is rated at 65 watts. The Core 5 320 uses a mobile BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 5 235T uses a desktop Socket 1851.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T wins in every measured benchmark category. Multi-threaded workloads show the largest margins. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 76.4 percent gap. PassMark floating point math shows a 60.2 percent gap. Integer math shows a 61.6 percent gap. Prime number finding shows a 65.4 percent gap. These results point to sustained heavy workloads: rendering, scientific computation, data compression, encryption, and any parallel processing task that can use 14 cores. The dual-channel memory bus at 102.4 GB/s supports this throughput. The PCIe Gen 5 implementation with 20 lanes also gives the platform more room for high-bandwidth peripherals.
The Core Ultra 5 235T also wins single-threaded tests, but by a smaller margin. The PassMark single-thread delta of 6.8 percent is the closest result in the dataset. This suggests that for lightly threaded applications, the Core 5 320 is not far behind. The Core Ultra 5 235T still holds the advantage, but the difference is modest. The Cinebench single-core deltas are larger, between 26 and 50.4 percent, so the overall single-thread picture favors the Core Ultra 5 235T clearly.
The Intel Core 5 320 has one structural advantage: power. The 15 watt TDP is 50 watts lower than the Core Ultra 5 235T. The mobile BGA 1516 socket and support for LPDDR5X memory indicate a platform designed for battery-powered devices. The Core 5 320 also has a higher launch MSRP of $340 compared to $247 for the Core Ultra 5 235T, but the price comparison is not meaningful across such different market segments. The Core 5 320 is a low-power mobile part. The Core Ultra 5 235T is a desktop part with substantially more cores, cache, memory bandwidth, and raw performance. The data does not show any workload where the Core 5 320 outperforms the Core Ultra 5 235T. The choice between them is a choice between a power-constrained mobile platform and a high-throughput desktop platform.