Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

The Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H are both mobile processors aimed at laptops, but the recorded benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy. The Core Ultra 7 255H, with its 16 cores and 16 threads, delivers a substantial multi-threaded advantage, while the Core 5 320 shows a surprising edge in certain single-threaded legacy tests. This analysis examines the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and the specific use cases where each processor prevails.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a decisive victory for the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, winning 15 out of 17 recorded benchmark comparisons. The most significant margins appear in multi-threaded and computationally intensive workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 255H scores 9240, which is 32.9% ahead of the Core 5 320's 6197. A similar pattern emerges in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 7 255H's 1515 score represents a 30.4% lead over the Core 5 320's 1054.

The gap widens in PassMark's math-heavy tests. In floating point math, the Core Ultra 7 255H scores 98796, a 57% advantage over the Core 5 320's 42440. Integer math shows an even larger disparity, with the Core Ultra 7 255H at 77975 versus 32323, a 58.5% lead. The find prime numbers test reveals the largest single delta at 63.7%, with the Core Ultra 7 255H scoring 303 compared to the Core 5 320's 110.

Data compression and encryption workloads also favor the Core Ultra 7 255H significantly. The data compression score for the Core Ultra 7 255H is 298850, which is 50.2% higher than the Core 5 320's 148779. Data encryption follows a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra 7 255H at 23395 versus 10984, a 53% lead. The multithread PassMark score of 30703 for the Core Ultra 7 255H is 49.7% ahead of the Core 5 320's 15450.

The Core 5 320 does manage to secure two victories, both in single-threaded Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 5 320 scores 276, a 10% lead over the Core Ultra 7 255H's 251. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows a narrower 4.5% advantage for the Core 5 320, with scores of 1926 and 1843 respectively. However, the PassMark single-thread test tells a different story, with the Core Ultra 7 255H taking a 6.3% lead (4317 vs 4045). The Cinebench R20 single-core test also favors the Core Ultra 7 255H, with a 14.3% advantage (900 vs 771).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 33537, compared to the Intel Core 5 320's 18023.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H dominates multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 9240, which is 32.9% higher than the Core 5 320's 6197. The PassMark multithread score also shows a 49.7% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255H.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 320 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Core 5 320 wins two tests: Cinebench R15 single-core (276 vs 251, a 10% lead) and Cinebench R23 single-core (1926 vs 1843, a 4.5% lead).

Q: What is the difference in the number of cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 has only 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core 5 320's boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Intel Core 5 320 is single-channel with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the clear winner in almost every performance category. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide a massive advantage in multi-threaded applications such as video rendering, 3D modeling, and software compilation. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9240 versus 6197 confirms this, as does the 49.7% lead in PassMark multithread. The data compression and encryption scores, with deltas of 50.2% and 53% respectively, indicate superior performance in file archiving, database workloads, and security-related tasks.

The Core Ultra 7 255H also excels in floating point and integer math, with score advantages of 57% and 58.5% respectively. This suggests strong performance in scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload that relies heavily on arithmetic calculations. The extended instructions test, where the Core Ultra 7 255H leads by 44.2%, further supports its capability in specialized instruction sets like AES or AVX. The higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz also contributes to its wins in the PassMark single-thread test (4317 vs 4045) and Cinebench R20 single-core (900 vs 771).

The Intel Core 5 320 finds its wins in two specific Cinebench tests. Its 10% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and 4.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core suggest that in certain older or lighter single-threaded workloads, it can edge out the larger processor. This may indicate better per-core efficiency in specific legacy scenarios, though the more modern PassMark single-thread test contradicts this by showing a 6.3% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255H.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their core configurations. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H offers 16 cores and 16 threads, a substantial increase over the Core 5 320's 6 cores and 6 threads. This core count difference is the primary driver of the multi-threaded performance gap. The base clock also differs, with the Core Ultra 7 255H running at 2.00 GHz compared to the Core 5 320's 1.50 GHz. The boost clock shows a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra 7 255H reaching 5.10 GHz versus the Core 5 320's 4.60 GHz.

The thermal design power (TDP) is another key difference. The Core Ultra 7 255H has a TDP of 28, while the Core 5 320 has a TDP of 15. This higher power envelope allows the Core Ultra 7 255H to sustain higher clocks under load, contributing to its performance advantage. The two processors also use different sockets: the Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 7 255H uses Intel BGA 2049. This means they are not interchangeable in the same motherboard.

Memory support also differs. The Core Ultra 7 255H supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 320 is limited to single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 255H also supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 320 does not. The PCIe capabilities are different as well, with the Core Ultra 7 255H offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only) for the Core 5 320.

Architecture Differences

The architectural separation between these processors is substantial. The Intel Core 5 320 is based on the Wildcat Lake architecture, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-H variant. Both processors are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries: the Core 5 320 is made by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 255H is made by TSMC.

The cache hierarchy shows notable differences. The Core 5 320 has a total L3 cache of 6 MB (shared), while the Core Ultra 7 255H has a much larger 24 MB (shared) L3 cache. The L2 cache is also different, with the Core 5 320 having 2.5 MB total versus the Core Ultra 7 255H's 3 MB per core. The L1 cache is similar at 192 KB, but the Core Ultra 7 255H specifies this as per core, which is a different formulation than the Core 5 320's total.

The integrated graphics differ significantly. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 7 255H features Arc Graphics 140T. The Arc Graphics solution is positioned as a higher-end integrated option, which aligns with the Core Ultra 7 255H's higher overall performance tier. The Core Ultra 7 255H also belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, a distinct product line with its own generation naming (Ultra 7, Arrow Lake-H), while the Core 5 320 is part of the Core 5 generation (Wildcat Lake).

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear choice based on performance requirements. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the superior processor for virtually all compute-intensive tasks. Its 16 cores, higher clock speeds, larger caches, and dual-channel memory give it overwhelming advantages in multi-threaded workloads, math processing, and data handling. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9240, which is 32.9% ahead of the Core 5 320, and the PassMark multithread score of 30703, 49.7% ahead, make it the obvious pick for users running rendering, compilation, or heavy data analysis. Its higher TDP of 28 and boost clock of 5.10 GHz also support sustained performance in demanding applications.

The Intel Core 5 320 is a more modest processor, with 6 cores and a lower TDP of 15. Its wins in two single-threaded Cinebench tests are notable but narrow, and they are contradicted by the PassMark single-thread result where the Core Ultra 7 255H leads by 6.3%. The Core 5 320's single-channel memory and smaller caches limit its potential in memory-sensitive workloads. Its lower average benchmark score of 18023, compared to 33537 for the Core Ultra 7 255H, reflects its position as the less capable part.

For users who prioritize raw multi-threaded performance, the Core Ultra 7 255H is the only choice, delivering leads of 30% to over 60% across a range of benchmarks. The Core 5 320 is only relevant in very specific legacy single-threaded scenarios, where its 10% Cinebench R15 lead might matter. The data does not support choosing the Core 5 320 for general-purpose computing, as the Core Ultra 7 255H wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests and holds a higher percentile ranking of 83 versus 72. The Core Ultra 7 255H also supports ECC memory and offers Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, features absent from the Core 5 320. The release dates confirm the Core Ultra 7 255H is the more established part, launched in January 2025, while the Core 5 320 arrived later in April 2026.