Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers a decisive outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core 5 320. Across 17 recorded tests, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus takes all 17 wins, while the Core 5 320 records zero victories. The average benchmark score gap is massive, with the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scoring 66855 against 18023 for the Core 5 320, a difference that places the two processors in entirely different performance tiers.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 320 lands in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus include the AMD EPYC 4465P (0.1% behind), the Intel Xeon 6515P (0.2% behind), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX (0.9% behind), which shows it competes at workstation and high-end desktop levels. The Core 5 320, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (0.2% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (0.7% ahead), placing it in the older mainstream range. For workloads demanding heavy multi-threading, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the clear choice. For a low-power mobile part, the Core 5 320 has its niche, but the recorded data shows no benchmark category where it leads its desktop counterpart.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the clock speed difference between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30867 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 5 320 scores 6197. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by 79.9%.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory. The Core 5 320 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor provide?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers 115.2 GB/s through a dual-channel memory bus. The Core 5 320 delivers 59.7 GB/s through a single-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the market segment for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor. The Core 5 320 is a mobile processor.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel generations and codenames. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is listed under the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, listed under the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: the Core 5 320 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is fabricated by TSMC.

The transistor and die size data reinforce the architectural gap. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 320 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database, which indicates a smaller, less complex design consistent with its mobile positioning. Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. 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 250K Plus has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. With 18 cores, the per-core L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus amounts to a far larger total cache footprint.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core 5 320 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, whereas the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5 only. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 320 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 320 does not.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ sharply: 6 cores and 6 threads on the Core 5 320 versus 18 cores and 18 threads on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Neither processor supports simultaneous multi-threading, so thread counts equal core counts in both cases. Base clocks diverge from 1.50 GHz on the mobile part to 4.20 GHz on the desktop part, and boost clocks from 4.60 GHz to 5.30 GHz. Thermal design power differs from 15 watts on the Core 5 320 to 125 watts on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, reflecting the desktop part's higher performance envelope.

The socket changes from Intel BGA 1516 on the Core 5 320 to Intel Socket 1851 on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core 5 320 is a mobile part, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop part. Memory channels differ: single-channel on the Core 5 320 versus dual-channel on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, with memory bandwidth figures of 59.7 GB/s and 115.2 GB/s respectively. ECC memory support is absent on the Core 5 320 and present on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. PCIe generation and lane counts differ, with Gen 4 and 6 lanes on the mobile part versus Gen 5 and 20 lanes on the desktop part. The integrated graphics differ, and the multiplier is unlocked only on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The release dates differ by about one month, with the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus released on 2026-03-10 and the Core 5 320 on 2026-04-15. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is $199; the launch MSRP for the Core 5 320 is $340.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus dominating in both single-core and multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 4640 against 1054 for the Core 5 320, a 77.3% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the scores are 328 versus 276, a 15.9% lead for the desktop part. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 18442 versus 5462, a 70.4% lead, and R20 single-core shows 2603 versus 771, also a 70.4% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers the largest multi-core delta in the suite: 30867 versus 6197, a 79.9% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2261 versus 1926, a 14.8% lead.

The PassMark suite repeats the pattern across all workloads. Data compression scores 568721 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus versus 148779 for the Core 5 320, a 73.8% gap. Data encryption shows 42144 versus 10984, a 73.9% gap. Extended instructions score 44565 versus 13262, a 70.2% gap. Prime number finding shows 486 versus 110, a 77.4% gap. Floating point math scores 162692 versus 42440, a 73.9% gap. Integer math scores 125091 versus 32323, a 74.2% gap. Multithread performance scores 51596 versus 15450, a 70.1% gap. Physics scores 3494 versus 1221, a 65.1% gap, the smallest multi-core delta in the data. Random string sorting scores 69090 versus 18038, a 73.9% gap. Single-thread PassMark scores 4757 versus 4045, a 15% gap, which matches the single-core Cinebench deltas and shows the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus holds a narrower but consistent lead in lightly threaded work.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in every recorded benchmark, so the "where each one wins" analysis is strictly a matter of degree. Its largest advantages come in multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result shows a 79.9% lead, and the PassMark prime number test shows a 77.4% lead, both indicating that heavily parallel workloads benefit enormously from the 18-core configuration. Data compression, encryption, floating point math, integer math, and random string sorting all show leads between 70.2% and 74.2%, confirming broad dominance across data processing tasks.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also wins single-threaded tests, but by smaller margins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 14.8% lead, Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 15.9% lead, and PassMark single-thread shows a 15% lead. These results indicate that the Core 5 320 is comparatively less far behind in lightly threaded applications, even though it still loses every contest. The smallest overall gap is in PassMark physics, where the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by 65.1%, the narrowest multi-core delta in the dataset.

The Core 5 320 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its positioning as a mobile processor with a 15 watt TDP and single-channel memory gives it a different purpose: low-power operation in compact systems. The data shows it performs closest to the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, the Intel Core 5 120U, and the Intel Core i5-1334U, with all three rivals within 0.7% of its average score. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, by contrast, matches the AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Xeon 6515P within 0.2%, placing it in server-class company. For users selecting between these two specific parts, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the stronger performer in every category the database records, while the Core 5 320 is the only option for a mobile, low-power form factor.