Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

The database’s head-to-head record between the Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is one-sided: the Core Ultra 9 285H wins all 17 comparisons, while the Core 5 320 records zero wins. The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 320 scores 6197 against 20781.5, a -70.2% delta. The smallest margin is in Passmark single-thread, 4045 versus 4415, a -8.4% delta.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285H wins every benchmark category in the head-to-head set. There is no test where the Core 5 320 takes the lead. The use-case split therefore comes from the size of the margins rather than the direction of the wins. In multi-threaded workloads, the Ultra 9 285H is decisively ahead: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a -70.2% delta, Passmark find prime numbers -66.7%, and Cinebench R15 multi-core -66.8%. In single-thread workloads, the lead is smaller but still consistent: Passmark single-thread -8.4%, Cinebench R23 single-core -9.6%, and Cinebench R15 single-core -11.8%.

The Core 5 320 still occupies a distinct position in the database. Its average benchmark score is 18023 at the 72nd percentile, placing it alongside the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (17994, 0.2% behind the Core 5 320), Intel Core 5 120U (17898, 0.7% behind), Intel Core i5-1334U (18154, 0.7% ahead), and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17891, 0.7% behind). The Core Ultra 9 285H, by contrast, averages 38312 at the 86th percentile, with closest competitors Core 9 270H (38335, 0.1% ahead), Core i5-13600HX (38261, 0.1% behind), Xeon w3-2525 (38392, 0.2% ahead), and Ryzen 7 250 (38221, 0.2% behind). These context scores confirm that the Core 5 320 competes in a lower performance tier.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use a 3 nm process node but different foundries: Intel for the Core 5 320, TSMC for the Core Ultra 9 285H. The Core 5 320 is built around the Wildcat Lake codename with 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-H, with 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285H also carries the Core Ultra Series 2 label, whereas the Core 5 320 has no series entry in the database.

Cache organization differs substantially. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285H lists 192 KB per core L1, 3 MB per core L2, and 24 MB shared L3. The larger shared L3 and per-core L2 are consistent with the Ultra 9 285H’s much higher multi-threaded scores.

Memory and I/O features also diverge. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but the Core 5 320 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s. The Core Ultra 9 285H supports ECC memory; the Core 5 320 does not. The Core 5 320 exposes PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285H exposes PCIe Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) on the Core 5 320 versus Arc Graphics 140T on the Core Ultra 9 285H. The sockets are different, Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 320 and Intel BGA 2049 for the Core Ultra 9 285H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Core 5 320 records zero wins.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the largest gap: the Core 5 320 scores 6197, the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 20781.5, a -70.2% delta.

Q: Is the single-thread gap as large as the multi-thread gap?

A: No. Passmark single-thread is 4045 versus 4415, a -8.4% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core is 1926 versus 2129.5, a -9.6% delta. Multi-core deltas are much larger, such as -70.2% in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: What memory features differ?

A: The Core 5 320 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s and no ECC support. The Core Ultra 9 285H uses dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s and supports ECC memory.

Q: Do the two processors have different cache sizes?

A: Yes. The Core 5 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 192 KB per core L1, 3 MB per core L2, and 24 MB shared L3.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speeds?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H has a 2.90 base clock and 5.40 boost, compared with 1.50 base and 4.60 boost on the Core 5 320.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 6 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.50 | 2.90 |

| Boost clock | 4.60 | 5.40 |

| TDP | 15 | 45 |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Architecture | Not listed | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-H) |

| Series | Not listed | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | $651 |

| Part number | SAE3H | SRQAL |

| Average benchmark score | 18023 | 38312 |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 72 | 86 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 285H wins every recorded head-to-head test, so the largest wins all belong to it. The biggest margin is Cinebench R23 multi-core: 6197 versus 20781.5, -70.2%. Passmark find prime numbers is close behind at -66.7% (110 vs 330), and Cinebench R15 multi-core is -66.8% (1054 vs 3177.5). Passmark integer math shows -62.4% (32323 vs 85922), floating point math -61.1% (42440 vs 109190), data encryption -58% (10984 vs 26140), data compression -55.7% (148779 vs 335859), random string sorting -55.9% (18038 vs 40931), and Passmark multithread -54.8% (15450 vs 34171). Passmark physics is -51.4% (1221 vs 2513), and extended instructions is -50.5% (13262 vs 26794). Notably, Cinebench R20 shows the same -55.2% delta in both multi-core (5462 vs 12201) and single-core (771 vs 1722).

The closest margins are all in single-thread tests. Passmark single-thread gives 4045 versus 4415, -8.4%. Cinebench R23 single-core gives 1926 versus 2129.5, -9.6%. Cinebench R15 single-core gives 276 versus 313, -11.8%. These single-thread results show that the Core 5 320 is more competitive when only one core is active, but it still does not win any comparison.

The Verdict

The data points in one direction. The Core Ultra 9 285H is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, with margins ranging from 8.4% in Passmark single-thread to 70.2% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its 16 cores, 16 threads, 24 MB shared L3, dual-channel memory, and ECC support give it a clear platform-level advantage. The Core 5 320 has a 15 W TDP and no benchmark wins, with an average score of 18023 versus 38312 for the Core Ultra 9 285H. For performance-oriented mobile designs, the Core Ultra 9 285H is the choice indicated by the data; for power-constrained designs, the Core 5 320 is the only one of the two with the lower TDP profile.