Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How do the two chips compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H records an average benchmark score of 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 320 has an average score of 18023, which lands in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H boosts to 4.80 GHz, whereas the Intel Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: What memory bandwidth do the two processors support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 320 uses single-channel memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: In which benchmark did the Intel Core 5 320 win?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 won the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4045, matching the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H's 4043, a delta of 0 percent.

Q: Which processor has a larger shared L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 5 320 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node and are both manufactured by Intel, but their architectural designs diverge significantly. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is built on Panther Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation.

Core counts establish the most basic difference. The Core Ultra 7 366H packs 16 cores with 16 threads, whereas the Core 5 320 provides only 6 cores and 6 threads. This 10-core gap explains why the Ultra 7 dominates in multi-threaded workloads throughout the benchmark data. The Ultra 7 also runs at a higher base clock of 2.00 GHz versus 1.50 GHz on the Core 5, and its boost clock reaches 4.80 GHz against 4.60 GHz.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure as well as size. The Core 5 320 lists L1 cache as 192 KB and L2 as 2.5 MB, with 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 366H lists L1 at 192 KB per core and L2 at 2.5 MB per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core notation on the Ultra 7 means its aggregate L2 capacity scales with its 16 cores, giving it far more total cache to feed those cores.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 7 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics without a listed Xe core count. Both processors target the mobile market segment, but they use different sockets: the Core 5 320 fits Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. PCIe support separates them as well, with the Core 5 providing Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only) and the Ultra 7 providing Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only).

The memory controller differs in channel width. The Core 5 320 uses a single-channel memory bus, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses a dual-channel bus. This directly feeds the bandwidth gap: the Ultra 7 delivers 115.2 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s on the Core 5. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both are locked (multiplier unlocked is false for each). The Core 5 320 carries a launch MSRP of $340, while the Ultra 7 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, which wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core 5 320 wins only 2, both in the PassMark single-thread test where it scores 4045 against 4043, a delta of 0 percent. That result indicates effectively identical single-thread performance in that specific workload, with the Core 5 taking the win by a razor-thin margin.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Ultra 7 scores 28477 against the Core 5's 6197, a delta of -78.2 percent. This means the Ultra 7 delivers roughly 4.6 times the multi-core render performance in that test. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 11960 versus 5462, a -54.3 percent delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core also favors the Ultra 7 at 2870 versus 1054, a -63.3 percent delta.

Single-core Cinebench results still favor the Ultra 7, though by smaller margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 7 scores 4020 against 1926, a -52.1 percent delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1688 versus 771, a -54.3 percent delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 405 versus 276, a -31.9 percent delta. The PassMark single-thread result stands as the exception, where the two processors are statistically tied.

PassMark workloads all favor the Ultra 7 except for the single-thread test. Data compression shows 327455 versus 148779, a -54.6 percent delta. Data encryption shows 25845 versus 10984, a -57.5 percent delta. Extended instructions show 26901 versus 13262, a -50.7 percent delta. Find prime numbers shows 326 versus 110, a -66.3 percent delta. Floating point math shows 103615 versus 42440, a -59 percent delta. Integer math shows 83695 versus 32323, a -61.4 percent delta. Multithread shows 33429 versus 15450, a -53.8 percent delta. Physics shows 2880 versus 1221, a -57.6 percent delta. Random string sorting shows 39814 versus 18038, a -54.7 percent delta.

Across all tests, the Ultra 7's deltas range from -31.9 percent in Cinebench R15 single-core to -78.2 percent in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The median delta sits near -54 percent, indicating that the Ultra 7 roughly doubles the Core 5's performance in most measured workloads.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 6 on the Core 5 320, 16 on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Threads: 6 on the Core 5 320, 16 on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Base clock: 1.50 GHz on the Core 5 320, 2.00 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Boost clock: 4.60 GHz on the Core 5 320, 4.80 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• TDP: 15 on the Core 5 320, 25 on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Socket: Intel BGA 1516 on the Core 5 320, Intel BGA 2540 on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Codename: Wildcat Lake on the Core 5 320, Panther Lake on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Generation: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) on the Core 5 320, Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H) on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• L1 cache: 192 KB on the Core 5 320, 192 KB per core on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• L2 cache: 2.5 MB on the Core 5 320, 2.5 MB per core on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared on the Core 5 320, 18 MB shared on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Memory bus: Single-channel on the Core 5 320, Dual-channel on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s on the Core 5 320, 115.2 GB/s on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• PCIe: Gen 4, 6 lanes on the Core 5 320, Gen 5, 12 lanes on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) on the Core 5 320, Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Release date: 2026-04-15 on the Core 5 320, 2026-01-04 on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Launch MSRP: $340 on the Core 5 320, null on the Core Ultra 7 366H
• Part number: SAE3H on the Core 5 320, SA4R9Q9EL on the Core Ultra 7 366H

Fields that match include process node (3 nm), foundry (Intel), memory support (DDR5, LPDDR5X), ECC memory (false for both), market segment (Mobile), production status (Active), and multiplier unlocked (false for both).

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H outperforms the Intel Core 5 320 in every multi-threaded and most single-threaded workloads. Its average benchmark score of 41263 versus 18023 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 320 sits in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals confirm the positioning: the Ultra 7 sits alongside the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (delta 0.1 percent), AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (delta 0.1 percent), AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (delta -0.3 percent), and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H (delta 0.7 percent). The Core 5 320 competes with the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (delta 0.2 percent), Intel Core 5 120U (delta 0.7 percent), Intel Core i5-1334U (delta -0.7 percent), and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (delta 0.7 percent).

The Core 5 320 does deliver one meaningful advantage: its single-thread PassMark score of 4045 matches the Ultra 7's 4043, with a 0 percent delta. This indicates that for lightly threaded tasks, the two processors perform on par. However, the Ultra 7 still wins the Cinebench single-core tests with margins between -31.9 and -54.3 percent, so the PassMark result does not translate into a general single-core superiority.

For mobile systems, the Core 5 320 offers a lower TDP of 15 versus 25, which suggests it fits into more power-constrained designs. The Ultra 7's 25 TDP and larger cache, dual-channel memory, and Gen 5 PCIe support indicate a higher-performance platform intended for thicker or better-cooled notebooks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins decisively in multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, extended instruction workloads, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithreaded PassMark, physics simulations, and random string sorting. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28477 versus 6197 makes it the clear choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales across cores. The 16 cores, 18 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory at 115.2 GB/s, and Gen 5 PCIe lanes all support heavy parallel processing.

The Intel Core 5 320 wins only in the PassMark single-thread test, where it scores 4045 against 4043. The difference is negligible, but the result shows that the Core 5's 4.60 GHz boost clock can keep pace with the Ultra 7's 4.80 GHz in at least one single-threaded scenario. Its lower TDP of 15 makes it more suitable for thin-and-light mobile designs where thermal headroom is limited. The Core 5 also carries a recorded launch MSRP of $340, while the Ultra 7 has no listed MSRP, which means the database offers no direct price comparison for the two.

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Core Ultra 7 366H is the higher-performance processor in nearly every measured category, while the Core 5 320 delivers comparable single-thread performance in one specific test and operates at a lower power envelope. Systems requiring sustained multi-core throughput should use the Ultra 7, while power-sensitive designs that still need competent single-thread performance can rely on the Core 5.