Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 records an average benchmark score of 48995, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 320 averages 18023, which places it in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap between the two?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 32924 versus 6197 for the Core 5 320, a delta of -81.2% from the perspective of the Core 5 320. The Core Ultra 5 245 leads by roughly 5.3 times in that test.

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR5. The Core 5 320 also supports LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 5 245 supports only DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 245 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Core 5 320 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has ECC memory support?

A: Only the Core Ultra 5 245 supports ECC memory. The Core 5 320 does not.

Q: What are the socket requirements?

A: The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket. The Core Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare?

A: The Core 5 320 sits within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, Intel Core 5 120U, Intel Core i5-1334U, and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT in average score. The Core Ultra 5 245 is within 0.8% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, AMD Ryzen 9 7900, Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, and Intel Core i5-14600K.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel divisions. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 5 245 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, with the Arrow Lake architecture.

Both are built on a 3 nm process node. The Core 5 320 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 245 is fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 245 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 320 has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading, as thread counts equal core counts for both.

Cache structures 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 5 245 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support and PCIe differ. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus. The Core Ultra 5 245 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus. The Core 5 320 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 5 245 provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 245 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The production status for both is Active. The Core 5 320 launched 2026-04-15, and the Core Ultra 5 245 launched 2025-01-06. The Core 5 320 carries launch MSRP of $340. The Core Ultra 5 245 carries launch MSRP of $270.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive performance hierarchy. The Core Ultra 5 245 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark and records a 90th percentile ranking, while the Core 5 320 ranks in the 72nd percentile. For desktop workloads where multi-threaded performance, memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity matter, the Core Ultra 5 245 is the clear choice.

The Core 5 320 is a mobile part with a 15 TDP, a single-channel memory bus, and PCIe Gen 4. Its average score of 18023 places it in the same performance class as older desktop parts like the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and the Intel Core i5-1334U. For a thin-and-light mobile system, that level of performance may be acceptable, but it does not compete with the Core Ultra 5 245 in any benchmark category.

The Core Ultra 5 245, with a 65 TDP and desktop socket, offers 14 cores, dual-channel DDR5, and PCIe Gen 5. Its average score of 48995 puts it alongside the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and Intel Core i5-14600K. If the workload involves rendering, compilation, or heavy parallel processing, the Core Ultra 5 245 is the only sensible pick from these two.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core Ultra 5 245 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 14 |

| Threads | 6 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | $270 |

| Part Number | SAE3H | SRVFE |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 245 wins all 17 recorded benchmarks. No single test favors the Core 5 320.

The single-thread gap is the smallest across the suite. In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 4394 against 4045 for the Core 5 320, a delta of -7.9%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a larger gap: 468 versus 276, a delta of -41%. The single-thread advantage in Cinebench R23 is -58.6%, with scores of 4648 and 1926.

Multi-threaded tests show enormous differences. Cinebench R23 multi-core gives the Core Ultra 5 245 a score of 32924 versus 6197, a delta of -81.2%. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 13828 versus 5462, a delta of -60.5%. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 3318 versus 1054, a delta of -68.2%.

PassMark math tests follow the same pattern. Floating point math: 120548 versus 42440, a delta of -64.8%. Integer math: 91187 versus 32323, a delta of -64.6%. Extended instructions: 33304 versus 13262, a delta of -60.2%. Find prime numbers: 365 versus 110, a delta of -69.9%.

Data-oriented workloads also favor the Core Ultra 5 245. Data compression: 400942 versus 148779, a delta of -62.9%. Data encryption: 30236 versus 10984, a delta of -63.7%. Random string sorting: 49140 versus 18038, a delta of -63.3%.

Multithread and physics tests complete the sweep. PassMark multithread: 38706 versus 15450, a delta of -60.1%. PassMark physics: 2569 versus 1221, a delta of -52.5%.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 245 wins in every category measured. It is faster in single-threaded work, multi-threaded work, math operations, data compression, encryption, and physics simulation. The closest margin is PassMark single-thread at -7.9%, which still represents a clear victory. The widest margin is Cinebench R23 multi-core at -81.2%.

The Core 5 320 does not win a single benchmark. Its only advantages are structural rather than performance-based. It has a much lower TDP of 15 W versus 65 W, which suits compact mobile designs with limited cooling. It also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is common in thin-and-light laptops. It uses a BGA socket, so it is soldered to the motherboard, which is typical for ultraportable systems.

For a desktop build, the Core Ultra 5 245 is the only viable option from this pair. It offers desktop memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, and ECC memory support. For a mobile system where battery life and thermal limits dominate, the Core 5 320 provides a lower-power alternative, though benchmark results indicate a substantial performance penalty.

The recorded data shows no scenario where the Core 5 320 outperforms the Core Ultra 5 245. Anyone prioritizing compute performance should choose the Core Ultra 5 245. Anyone prioritizing low power consumption in a mobile form factor should consider the Core 5 320, accepting its significantly lower benchmark scores.