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

Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus occupy opposite ends of the performance spectrum, a fact made clear by the recorded data. The Core 5 320 is a mobile part with a 15 TDP, designed for efficiency and portability, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop processor with a 125 TDP, built for maximum throughput. Across seventeen head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every single test, with the smallest margin being a 13.9% lead in single-threaded workloads and the largest being an 85.5% advantage in multi-core rendering.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results offer a clear-cut division of labor. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in every recorded workload category, but the magnitude of its victories varies significantly. The most pronounced advantage appears in heavily parallel workloads: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows an 85.5% delta, while PassMark data compression and floating point math show 73.1% and 73.4% deltas respectively. These are tasks that scale with core count and memory bandwidth, areas where the desktop part holds a massive structural edge.

The Intel Core 5 320, despite losing all comparisons, still demonstrates its intended strengths through the data. Its single-threaded PassMark score of 4045 is only 13.9% behind the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a remarkably small gap for a processor with a 15 TDP. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the margin is 54.5%, but this test favors higher sustained clocks. The mobile chip's architecture shows it can hold its own in lightly threaded scenarios, which is typical for power-constrained designs. The data indicates the Core 5 320 is positioned for tasks where low power consumption matters more than raw compute, such as thin-and-light laptops handling everyday productivity.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with its 18 cores and 18 threads, is clearly aimed at content creation, scientific computing, and any workload that can utilize many threads. Its PassMark multithread score of 50146 versus 15450 for the Core 5 320 shows a 69.2% advantage, confirming that the desktop part excels when all cores are engaged. The physics test, often correlated with gaming simulation workloads, shows a 61.6% delta in favor of the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, suggesting stronger performance in that specific compute pattern.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 3 nm process node but diverge fundamentally in every other architectural aspect. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built on a design where Intel is the foundry. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and is manufactured by TSMC. This foundry difference is notable: the mobile chip comes from Intel's own fabs, while the desktop chip is outsourced to TSMC.

Core and thread counts present the starkest contrast. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads with no hyper-threading, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The desktop part also runs at significantly higher clocks: a 4.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost versus 1.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost for the mobile chip. The TDP figures reflect this, with 15 watts for the Core 5 320 and 125 watts for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Memory architecture reinforces the performance gap. The Core 5 320 uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, nearly double the memory throughput. Cache hierarchies differ substantially: the Core 5 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. The desktop chip also supports ECC memory, which the mobile part does not.

PCIe connectivity shows another tier difference. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are present on the mobile chip as Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the desktop part has no integrated graphics at all. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Core 5 320 is locked. Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the desktop part: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals the full extent of the multi-core performance gap. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 against 6197 for the Core 5 320, an 85.5% delta. This is the largest margin in any benchmark. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 69.6% delta with scores of 17941 versus 5462. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 75.5% delta with 4305 versus 1054.

Single-core Cinebench results narrow the gap but still favor the desktop chip decisively. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 6030 versus 1926, a 68.1% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2532 versus 771, a 69.5% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 607 versus 276, a 54.5% delta. The largest single-core margin is 69.5%, while the smallest is 54.5%, indicating that the desktop part's higher clocks and newer architecture deliver consistent advantages even in lightly threaded tests.

PassMark tests tell a similar story with varying deltas. Data compression shows 553155 versus 148779, a 73.1% delta. Data encryption shows 41292 versus 10984, a 73.4% delta. Extended instructions show 42880 versus 13262, a 69.1% delta. Find prime numbers shows 452 versus 110, a 75.7% delta. Floating point math shows 159824 versus 42440, a 73.4% delta. Integer math shows 123030 versus 32323, a 73.7% delta. Multithread shows 50146 versus 15450, a 69.2% delta. Physics shows 3183 versus 1221, a 61.6% delta. Random string sorting shows 67209 versus 18038, a 73.2% delta.

The single-thread PassMark test delivers the closest result of the entire comparison. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4698 against 4045 for the Core 5 320, a 13.9% delta. This is the only benchmark where the mobile part stays within 15% of the desktop part, suggesting that the Wildcat Lake architecture has strong single-thread efficiency despite its low power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 versus 6197 for the Core 5 320, an 85.5% delta in favor of the desktop part.

Q: How close are the two in single-threaded performance?

A: The closest benchmark is PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4698 versus 4045, a 13.9% delta. Cinebench single-core tests show larger gaps ranging from 54.5% to 69.5%.

Q: Do both processors use integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What memory configurations do they support?

A: The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with single-channel memory and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 5 320 does not.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

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

| Cores | 6 | 18 |

| Threads | 6 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| 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) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 115.2 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) | N/A |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | $184 |

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also carries a higher percentile ranking at 93 versus 72 for the Core 5 320, and its average benchmark score of 66159 dwarfs the 18023 of the mobile chip. The desktop part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 0.4% delta and the Intel Core 9 273PQE at 0.1% delta, placing it in elite company. The Core 5 320 sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core i5-1334U, with deltas of 0.2% and -0.7% respectively, showing it competes in a much lower performance tier.