Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 266V Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V records an average benchmark score of 23297, while the Intel Core 5 320 scores 18023. The Ultra 7 sits at the 76th percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V scores 16544 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core 5 320 scores 6197. The delta is 62.5% in favor of the Ultra 7, making it the largest single benchmark gap between the two.

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

A: Yes, the Core 5 320 wins three recorded tests: Cinebench R15 single-core (276 vs 235, a 17.4% advantage), PassMark single-thread (4045 vs 3943, a 2.6% advantage), and the duplicate PassMark singlethread result with the same 2.6% delta.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V has a dual-channel memory bus delivering 136.5 GB/s, whereas the Intel Core 5 320 uses a single-channel bus rated at 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 7 provides more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz. The Ultra 7 also has a higher base clock at 2.20 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 7 266V compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H?

A: The Core Ultra 7 266V has an average score of 23297, which is 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H at 23277. The Ultra 7 also edges out the Intel Core i9-11900F (23254) by 0.2% and the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V (23219) by 0.3%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points decisively toward the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V for users who need sustained multi-threaded throughput. It wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests, with its largest victory coming in Cinebench R23 multi-core where it delivers a 62.5% higher score. The Ultra 7 also holds the higher percentile ranking at 76, placing it ahead of roughly three-quarters of all recorded CPUs.

The Intel Core 5 320, however, demonstrates a meaningful advantage in two specific single-thread tests. Its Cinebench R15 single-core score of 276 beats the Ultra 7's 235 by 17.4%, and its PassMark single-thread score of 4045 tops the Ultra 7's 3943 by 2.6%. These wins suggest the Core 5 320 has a place in scenarios that favor lightly threaded workloads with short bursts of activity.

For general-purpose mobile computing, the recorded data favors the Ultra 7 266V across nearly every category: encryption, compression, floating-point math, integer math, and physics simulations all show double-digit percentage leads. The Ultra 7 also matches or exceeds the Core 5 320 in every Cinebench generation tested except R15 single-core. Users prioritizing raw computational output should select the Ultra 7 266V. Users who value the specific single-thread characteristics measured in the Core 5 320 may find its narrower wins useful for legacy software or single-process workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest performance gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V scores 16544 against the Core 5 320's 6197, a 62.5% advantage. This delta dwarfs all other comparisons and indicates a substantial difference in sustained multi-core capability.

The second-largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 scores 191 versus 110 for the Core 5, a 42.4% lead. This test measures integer-heavy algorithmic work, and the result aligns with the Ultra 7's 22.2% advantage in PassMark integer math (41558 vs 32323).

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 scores 1667 against 1054 for the Core 5, a 36.8% difference. The Ultra 7 also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core by 21.4% (6948 vs 5462) and in Cinebench R20 single-core by 21.3% (980 vs 771). These consistent Cinebench results across multiple versions indicate the Ultra 7 maintains its advantage regardless of the rendering workload version.

PassMark floating-point math shows the Ultra 7 at 56923 versus 42440 for the Core 5, a 25.4% lead. PassMark physics follows a similar pattern: 1608 for the Ultra 7 versus 1221 for the Core 5, a 24.1% difference. PassMark data compression and data encryption both show the Ultra 7 leading by 20.5% (187050 vs 148779 for compression, 13822 vs 10984 for encryption).

PassMark multi-thread scores place the Ultra 7 at 19461 versus 15450 for the Core 5, a 20.6% gap. PassMark random string sorting shows the Ultra 7 ahead by 21.2% (22905 vs 18038), and PassMark extended instructions give the Ultra 7 a 16.7% lead (15928 vs 13262).

The Core 5 320's wins are concentrated in single-thread tests. Its Cinebench R15 single-core score of 276 beats the Ultra 7's 235 by 17.4%, which is the only single-core Cinebench test the Core 5 wins. In PassMark single-thread, the Core 5 scores 4045 versus 3943 for the Ultra 7, a smaller 2.6% margin. The Core 5 also wins the duplicate PassMark singlethread test with the identical 2.6% delta.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V uses 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts for both.

Clock speeds differ notably. The Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Ultra 7 266V has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, making it faster in both metrics.

Thermal design power differs slightly: the Core 5 320 is rated at 15 W, while the Ultra 7 266V is rated at 17 W. Both processors use mobile sockets but different ones: the Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Ultra 7 266V uses Intel BGA 2833.

Memory support diverges substantially. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 7 266V supports LPDDR5X (dependent on motherboard) over a dual-channel bus with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, more than double the Core 5's throughput.

PCIe generation and lane counts differ. The Core 5 320 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 266V uses PCIe Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 7 266V uses Arc 140V.

The Core 5 320 carries a launch MSRP of $340. The Ultra 7 266V has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both processors are marked as active in production and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Intel Core 5 320 belongs to the Wildcat Lake generation and uses the Wildcat Lake codename. The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Lunar Lake architecture, and carries the Lunar Lake codename.

Both processors are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core 5 320 is manufactured by Intel, while the Ultra 7 266V is manufactured by TSMC. This foundry split represents a notable divergence in production strategy within the same generation.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 266V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core figures for the Ultra 7, when multiplied across 8 cores, yield substantially larger total cache capacity than the Core 5's aggregate numbers.

Release dates differ by roughly a year and a half. The Ultra 7 266V was released on 2024-09-23, while the Core 5 320 was released on 2026-04-15. This places the Core 5 320 as the newer design despite its lower core count and narrower memory bus.

The part numbers also differ: the Core 5 320 uses SAE3H, and the Ultra 7 266V uses SRPMMSRPMY. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both are classified as mobile market segment parts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V dominates in multi-threaded and computationally intensive workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16544, which is 62.5% ahead of the Core 5 320, makes it the clear choice for rendering, video encoding, and other tasks that scale across cores. The Ultra 7 also leads in PassMark multi-thread (19461 vs 15450) and PassMark physics (1608 vs 1221), indicating strength in simulation and physical computation tasks.

For data-centric operations, the Ultra 7 holds consistent advantages. Its data compression score of 187050 is 20.5% higher, its data encryption score of 13822 is 20.5% higher, and its random string sorting score of 22905 is 21.2% higher. These results suggest the Ultra 7 handles file archiving, encryption workloads, and data organization tasks with greater efficiency.

The Ultra 7 also wins in mathematical workloads. Its floating-point math score of 56923 is 25.4% ahead, its integer math score of 41558 is 22.2% ahead, and its prime number finding score of 191 is 42.4% ahead. Extended instruction set performance favors the Ultra 7 by 16.7% (15928 vs 13262), indicating better support for modern SIMD and specialized instruction paths.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins in a narrow set of single-thread scenarios. Its Cinebench R15 single-core score of 276 surpasses the Ultra 7's 235 by 17.4%, which is the largest single-core margin in either direction. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4045 edges past the Ultra 7's 3943 by 2.6%. These wins suggest the Core 5 320 can outperform the Ultra 7 in legacy single-threaded applications that rely on the specific performance characteristics measured by Cinebench R15, though the margin narrows considerably in the PassMark single-thread test.

For users running older software that depends on single-core performance, the Core 5 320 offers a measurable advantage in one benchmark generation. For all other recorded workloads, from modern rendering to data processing to mathematical computation, the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V delivers higher scores, often by double-digit percentages. The overall win tally of 14 for the Ultra 7 versus 3 for the Core 5 320 reflects this broad performance distribution.