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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is in a completely different performance class than the Intel Core 5 320. Benchmark data shows the Core Ultra 9 285HX winning all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the largest margins appearing in heavily multithreaded workloads. The Core 5 320, while a modern and efficient part, is positioned far below the 285HX in raw capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive separation occurs in multi-core rendering tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 36,429.5 against the Core 5 320's 6,197, a delta of -83% for the smaller chip. Cinebench R20 multi-core tells a similar story: the 285HX records 20,236 points versus 5,462, a -73% difference. The R15 multi-core test shows 5,656.5 against 1,054, a -81.4% gap.

The data shows a notable anomaly in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 2,856 against 771, a -73% delta. This is a much larger single-core margin than in other single-threaded tests. For comparison, Cinebench R23 single-core shows the 285HX at 2,187.5 versus the Core 5 320's 1,926, only a -12% difference. Cinebench R15 single-core is similarly close at -14.7%, with scores of 323.5 and 276. The R20 single-core result appears to be an outlier in the data, but it is the recorded measurement.

PassMark tests reinforce the multi-core dominance. Integer math shows the 285HX at 155,076 against 32,323, a -79.2% delta. Floating-point math follows with 194,998 versus 42,440, a -78.2% difference. Data compression is heavily one-sided: 631,885 for the 285HX versus 148,779, a -76.5% delta. Data encryption shows 48,567 versus 10,984, a -77.4% gap.

The smallest margins appear in single-threaded PassMark results. PassMark single-thread shows the 285HX at 4,618 against 4,045, a -12.4% delta. The physics test shows a -64.9% difference (3,476 versus 1,221), and random string sorting shows a -76.6% gap (77,196 versus 18,038). Extended instructions, find prime numbers, and multithread all land between -72.8% and -73% in favor of the 285HX.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is the superior processor in every recorded benchmark. It holds a 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score for the 285HX is 76,155, compared to 18,023 for the Core 5 320.

The Core 5 320's closest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (average score 17,994, a 0.2% delta), the Intel Core 5 120U (17,898, a 0.7% delta), the Intel Core i5-1334U (18,154, a -0.7% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17,891, a 0.7% delta). These are all older or lower-tier desktop and mobile parts. The Core Ultra 9 285HX, by contrast, competes against the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (76,212, a -0.1% delta), the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (76,492, a -0.4% delta), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76,513, a -0.5% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D (75,779, a 0.5% delta). The 285HX is grouped with high-end desktop and workstation processors, not mobile chips.

For workloads that depend on many threads, the 285HX is the only rational choice from this data. For lightly threaded tasks, the 285HX still wins, but the margin is much smaller, around 12% to 15%. The Core 5 320 does not win any test and offers no performance advantage in any recorded category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-HX, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It is also built on a 3 nm process, but at TSMC. The 285HX has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The Core 5 320 does not have recorded transistor or die size data.

Core counts differ dramatically. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, also without hyperthreading. This explains the massive multi-core benchmark gaps.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. 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 9 285HX lists L1 as 192 KB per core and L2 as 3 MB per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The 285HX's larger L3 allocation is consistent with its higher thread count and target workload.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the 285HX but not on the Core 5 320.

PCIe capabilities differ substantially. The Core 5 320 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 320 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the 285HX has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

Specification Differences

The Core Ultra 9 285HX has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Thermal design power is 55 watts for the 285HX and 15 watts for the Core 5 320.

Sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX uses Intel BGA 2114. The multiplier is unlocked on the 285HX, allowing overclocking; it is locked on the Core 5 320.

The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Release dates differ: the Core 5 320 was released on 2026-04-15, and the Core Ultra 9 285HX was released on 2025-01-12.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 36,429.5 versus the Core 5 320's 6,197, a -83% delta. PassMark multithread shows 56,902 against 15,450, a -72.8% delta.

Q: How close are the two processors in single-threaded performance?

A: The gap is much smaller than in multi-core tests. PassMark single-thread shows the 285HX at 4,618 versus 4,045, a -12.4% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,187.5 versus 1,926, a -12% delta.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX supports 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus. The Core 5 320 supports 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus that also supports LPDDR5X.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 9 285HX has ECC memory support. The Core 5 320 does not.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX has Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Core 5 320 has Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Q: What is the core and thread count for each?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its largest advantages are in multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, and math workloads. The data shows no workload category where the Core 5 320 records a higher score.

The Core 5 320's only relative strength is in single-threaded tests, where the margin narrows to roughly 12% to 15%. Even there, the 285HX holds the lead. The Core 5 320's 15 watt TDP and single-channel memory configuration suggest it is designed for power-sensitive mobile systems, but the database does not include any power or efficiency benchmarks to confirm this advantage.

The Core Ultra 9 285HX is positioned among high-end desktop and workstation processors in the database, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D. The Core 5 320 sits alongside older mid-range parts like the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and the Intel Core i5-1334U. For any workload that benefits from more cores, higher clocks, dual-channel memory, or Gen 5 PCIe, the 285HX is the clear choice. The Core 5 320 is a modern 3 nm part with a low power envelope, but its performance class is fundamentally different.