Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H records an average benchmark score of 33989, placing it at the 84th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 320 averages 18023, which sits at the 72nd percentile. The Ultra 5 338H outperforms the Core 5 320 by a wide margin in the aggregate.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 338H compare to its closest rivals?

A: The database places the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H within 0.7% of the AMD EPYC 4244P (which scores 34220) and within 0.3% of the Intel Core i7-12800HX (which scores 33875). It trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H by 0.3%, with that chip scoring 34083.

Q: What are the closest competitors to the Intel Core 5 320?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 is nearly tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, which scores 17994, a delta of just 0.2%. It also sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core 5 120U (17898) and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17891), while the Intel Core i5-1334U leads it by 0.7% with a score of 18154.

Q: Did the Core 5 320 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data lists 17 benchmark tests, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H won all 17. The Core 5 320 registered zero wins in the recorded tests.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz. The difference in single-thread performance is modest, with the Ultra 5 338H leading by 3.2% in PassMark single-thread tests.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H supports dual-channel LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 5 338H provides more than twice the memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct Intel families. The Intel Core 5 320 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Panther Lake-H generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry, but the design philosophies differ substantially.

Core and thread counts represent a major split. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 338H doubles the core count to 12 cores and 12 threads. This doubling is the primary driver of the multi-core performance gap observed in the benchmarks.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. 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 338H lists L1 at 192 KB per core and L2 at 2.5 MB per core, with a much larger 18 MB shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 5 338H scales directly with its 12 cores, giving it far more total cache resources.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The Core 5 320 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only through a single-channel memory bus, limiting bandwidth to 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X, yet uses a dual-channel bus, achieving 136.5 GB/s. The Ultra 5 338H also uses a newer PCIe interface: Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes, whereas the Core 5 320 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 320 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 338H integrates Arc B370 graphics. The sockets also differ: the Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540. The part numbers and release dates vary, with the Core 5 320 appearing later in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a decisive performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H leads the Intel Core 5 320 in every single benchmark listed in the head-to-head comparison, 17 wins to 0. Its average benchmark score of 33989 eclipses the Core 5 320's 18023 by roughly 88%. The percentile placement confirms the separation: 84th percentile versus 72nd.

For workloads that rely on multi-threaded throughput, the choice is clear. The Ultra 5 338H delivers 16331 in Cinebench R23 multi-core against 6197 for the Core 5 320, a delta of 62.1% in favor of the former. The 12-core, 12-thread configuration with 18 MB of shared L3 cache provides a structural advantage that the 6-core, 6-thread Wildcat Lake chip cannot overcome.

Single-thread performance tells a closer story. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 338H scores 2044 versus 1926, a 5.8% edge. PassMark single-thread shows 4180 versus 4045, a 3.2% gap. The boost clock difference of 4.70 GHz versus 4.60 GHz explains part of this, but the architecture itself appears to offer a small IPC advantage.

The Core 5 320 still holds a role. Its 15 W TDP versus 25 W TDP indicates lower power draw, and it supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, offering memory flexibility that the Ultra 5 338H lacks. For systems prioritizing the recorded efficiency profile and memory options, the Core 5 320 fits. For any task where raw compute matters, the Ultra 5 338H is the superior part according to the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 12 |

| Threads | 6 | 12 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture / codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 6 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

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

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc B370 |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals the largest gaps. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 338H scores 16331 against 6197 for the Core 5 320, a 62.1% deficit for the latter. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 2504 versus 1054, a 57.9% gap. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows with 10213 versus 5462, a 46.5% difference. These results confirm that the 12-core design dominates in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

The single-core Cinebench tests show a narrower but consistent lead. Cinebench R23 single-core gives the Ultra 5 338H a 5.8% edge (2044 vs 1926). Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 9.5% lead (305 vs 276). Cinebench R20 single-core is closer to R23, with 1441 versus 771, a 46.5% gap that stands out as an outlier compared to the other single-core tests, suggesting a possible variance in the recorded run.

PassMark tests reinforce the multi-threaded story. Integer math scores 64934 for the Ultra 5 338H versus 32323 for the Core 5 320, a 50.2% difference. Floating point math hits 84067 versus 42440, a 49.5% gap. Find prime numbers shows 304 versus 110, a 63.8% lead for the Ultra 5 338H, the largest delta in the entire head-to-head set.

Memory-sensitive and encryption workloads also favor the Ultra 5 338H. Data compression scores 276539 versus 148779, a 46.2% difference. Data encryption scores 21367 versus 10984, a 48.6% gap. Extended instructions show 23906 versus 13262, a 44.5% lead. Random string sorting delivers 34082 versus 18038, a 47.1% difference.

Multithread and physics tests complete the sweep. PassMark multithread gives 28717 versus 15450, a 46.2% gap. PassMark physics shows 2697 versus 1221, a 54.7% lead. The only narrow wins for the Ultra 5 338H appear in PassMark single-thread, where it leads by 3.2% (4180 vs 4045), and in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it leads by 5.8%.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins across every recorded benchmark category. Its advantages are largest in multi-core rendering, prime number calculation, and physics workloads, all of which scale with core count and cache capacity. The 12-core, 12-thread configuration, combined with 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 136.5 GB/s of memory bandwidth, positions it for compute-heavy tasks such as 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific simulations. The data shows a 62.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 54.7% lead in PassMark physics, indicating that any workload with parallelizable threads will see substantial gains.

The Intel Core 5 320, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has attributes that suit a different niche. Its 15 W TDP suggests a lower power envelope, which can benefit thermally constrained mobile designs. The support for both DDR5 and LPDDR5X gives system integrators memory flexibility that the Ultra 5 338H lacks, as the latter only supports LPDDR5X. The Core 5 320 also uses a single-channel memory bus, which limits bandwidth to 59.7 GB/s, but for light tasks this may be sufficient.

In single-threaded workloads, the gap narrows considerably. The Core 5 320 trails by only 3.2% in PassMark single-thread and 5.8% in Cinebench R23 single-core. For applications that rely on one or two threads, such as basic office productivity or web browsing, the Core 5 320 remains competitive despite its lower core count. The boost clock of 4.60 GHz is close to the Ultra 5 338H's 4.70 GHz, keeping the single-thread experience similar.

The Core Ultra 5 338H also delivers a clear advantage in memory bandwidth, offering 136.5 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s, a more than 2x difference. This benefits workloads that stream large datasets, such as data compression, where the Ultra 5 338H scores 276539 versus 148779. The PCIe Gen 5 interface on the Ultra 5 338H provides a newer connectivity standard, though the Core 5 320 offers more CPU-only lanes (6 versus 4). The integrated graphics differ, with Arc B370 on the Ultra 5 338H versus Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores on the Core 5 320, which may matter for systems without discrete GPUs.

The release timeline also matters. The Core 5 320 launched later in the database (2026-04-15) than the Ultra 5 338H (2026-01-04), and the Core 5 320 carries a launch MSRP of $340, while the Ultra 5 338H has no listed MSRP. The production status for both is active. For users prioritizing raw performance in every measured category, the Ultra 5 338H is the only choice from the recorded data. For those prioritizing lower TDP and memory flexibility, the Core 5 320 offers a distinct, if slower, alternative.