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

Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX occupy very different positions in the mobile processor lineup. The Core 5 320 is a 6-core, 6-thread part built on Wildcat Lake, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on Arrow Lake-HX architecture. Benchmark data from the database shows a complete sweep: the Core Ultra 7 255HX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The magnitude of those wins varies from a modest single-digit percentage in single-core workloads to over 80% in heavy multi-core rendering.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX dominates the Intel Core 5 320 across every recorded benchmark, with no exceptions in the head-to-head comparison. Its average benchmark score of 62738 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 320 averages 18023 and sits in the 72nd percentile. For workloads that scale with core count, such as video rendering, data compression, and scientific computing, the Core Ultra 7 255HX is the only reasonable choice based on the recorded measurements.

The Core 5 320 remains a functional option for light mobile use cases. Its single-core performance is close enough to the larger chip that everyday responsiveness should not feel dramatically different. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 2163 versus 1926 for the Core 5 320, a difference of 11%. That is the smallest gap in the entire dataset. Users who prioritize battery life over raw throughput might prefer the Core 5 320, as its 15 W TDP is far lower than the 55 W TDP of the Core Ultra 7 255HX, though the database does not include battery runtime measurements.

The Core Ultra 7 255HX also benefits from a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz compared to 4.60 GHz, and its 30 MB of shared L3 cache dwarfs the 6 MB shared L3 cache of the Core 5 320. For professional workloads, the choice is clear. For basic tasks on a thin-and-light machine, the Core 5 320 delivers adequate performance per the recorded scores.

Where Each One Wins

Every single recorded benchmark in the head-to-head table is won by the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX. The Core 5 320 does not secure a single victory in any of the 17 tests. This includes all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 runs, both single-core and multi-core, as well as all seven PassMark tests: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single thread.

The closest margins are in single-threaded workloads. Cinebench R23 single-core shows an 11% delta in favor of the Core Ultra 7 255HX, and PassMark single thread shows an 11.3% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core is close at 15.6%. These results suggest that per-core efficiency is similar, with the advantage coming from the higher boost clock and larger cache.

The largest gaps appear in multi-core tests. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows an 81% delta, Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 68.2% delta, and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 78.6% delta. PassMark integer math shows a 74.6% delta, and floating point math shows a 73.6% delta. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores versus 6 cores, which explains the massive scaling advantage in parallel workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node, but they are built by different foundries. Intel fabricates the Core 5 320, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 7 255HX. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, and the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Arrow Lake-HX.

The core configurations are drastically different. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading or equivalent technology is active. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, also without extra threads per core. Both processors rely on physical cores alone.

Cache hierarchies 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 7 255HX reports 192 KB per core for L1, 3 MB per core for L2, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 255HX also lists a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 320 does not have recorded transistor or die size figures.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 255HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities favor the Core Ultra 7 255HX. It offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 320 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, and the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core 5 320 fits Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra 7 255HX fits Intel BGA 2114. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 320 does not. The Core Ultra 7 255HX released on 2025-01-12, and the Core 5 320 released on 2026-04-15.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins every multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 32612 versus 6197 for the Core 5 320, an 81% delta. PassMark multithread shows 48234 versus 15450, a 68% delta.

Q: How close is single-core performance?

A: Single-core results are the closest category. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2163 for the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 1926 for the Core 5 320, an 11% delta. PassMark single thread shows 4562 versus 4045, an 11.3% delta.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255HX has 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 320 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. L1 and L2 figures are reported differently, with the Core Ultra 7 255HX listing per-core values of 192 KB and 3 MB respectively.

Q: Do they use the same memory?

A: No. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 255HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are the sockets interchangeable?

A: No. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Intel BGA 2114.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 255HX wins all 17 head-to-head tests. The most decisive victory is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 32612 against 6197 for the Core 5 320, a delta of 81%. That test highlights the 20-core advantage in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 78.6% delta with scores of 4916 versus 1054. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 68.2% delta with scores of 17187 versus 5462. PassMark integer math shows a 74.6% delta with scores of 127126 versus 32323. PassMark floating point math shows a 73.6% delta with scores of 160624 versus 42440.

Data compression and encryption also favor the larger chip heavily. PassMark data compression shows a 71.1% delta with scores of 515143 versus 148779. Data encryption shows a 72.2% delta with scores of 39499 versus 10984. Find prime numbers shows a 72.5% delta with scores of 400 versus 110.

The smallest margins are in single-threaded tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows an 11% delta with scores of 2163 versus 1926. PassMark single thread shows an 11.3% delta with scores of 4562 versus 4045. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 15.6% delta with scores of 327 versus 276. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 68.2% delta with scores of 2426 versus 771, an outlier compared to the other single-core results.

Physics simulation shows a 58.3% delta with scores of 2926 versus 1221. Random string sorting shows a 71.2% delta with scores of 62591 versus 18038. Extended instructions show a 67.8% delta with scores of 41247 versus 13262. PassMark multithread shows a 68% delta with scores of 48234 versus 15450.

The Core Ultra 7 255HX also holds a higher percentile ranking at 93 versus 72 for the Core 5 320. Its average benchmark score of 62738 is roughly 3.5 times the 18023 average of the Core 5 320. Nearest rival data confirms the positioning: the Core Ultra 7 255HX sits near the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185, which trails by 0.2%, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465, which trails by 0.4%. The Core 5 320 sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, which leads by 0.2%, and the Intel Core 5 120U, which trails by 0.7%.

Specification Differences

The Core 5 320 and Core Ultra 7 255HX differ in almost every recorded specification. Core count is 6 versus 20. Thread count is 6 versus 20. Base clock is 1.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clock is 4.60 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. TDP is 15 W versus 55 W.

Socket types differ: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 320 and Intel BGA 2114 for the Core Ultra 7 255HX. The codenames are Wildcat Lake and Arrow Lake-HX respectively. The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses TSMC as its foundry, while the Core 5 320 uses Intel. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has recorded transistor and die size figures of 17,800 million and 243 mm²; the Core 5 320 has none.

Cache values differ: L1 is 192 KB for the Core 5 320 versus 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 7 255HX. L2 is 2.5 MB versus 3 MB per core. L3 is 6 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 and LPDDR5X versus DDR5 only. Memory bus is single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

PCIe is Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 320 and unlocked on the Core Ultra 7 255HX. Release dates are 2026-04-15 and 2025-01-12. The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340; the Core Ultra 7 255HX has no recorded launch MSRP.