Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison
Intel Core 5 320
Core Ultra 9 288V
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V
The Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core Ultra 9 288V are both mobile processors built on a 3 nm node, yet their performance profiles are distinctly different. The recorded data shows the Core Ultra 9 288V winning all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with an average benchmark score of 23219 compared to 18023 for the Core 5 320. This places the Core Ultra 9 288V in the 76th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 320 sits in the 72nd percentile. The performance gap is consistent across single-threaded, multi-threaded, and specialized workloads, though the magnitude of the difference varies significantly by test type.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core 5 320 does not win any of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Every test, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark math operations, is won by the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V. This is a comprehensive sweep with no workload category where the Core 5 320 takes the lead.
The closest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra 9 288V scores 1950 against 1926 for the Core 5 320, a delta of only 1.2%. This indicates that for lightly threaded applications relying on a single core, the two processors are nearly equivalent. The Core 5 320 trails by just 5.4% in PassMark single-thread and by 8.5% in Cinebench R15 single-core, reinforcing that the single-core advantage of the Core Ultra 9 288V is modest.
The largest gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 288V leads by 43.6%, scoring 195 versus 110. This suggests a substantial advantage in integer-heavy, mathematically intensive workloads. Multi-core Cinebench R23 also shows a wide 39.1% delta, with the Core Ultra 9 288V scoring 10178 against 6197. The Core 5 320 is therefore best suited for basic productivity and single-threaded tasks, while the Core Ultra 9 288V dominates in multi-threaded rendering, encryption, compression, and floating-point math.
Architecture Differences
The two processors share a 3 nm process node but are fabricated by different foundries. The Intel Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and is fabricated by TSMC. Both are mobile parts with active production status.
Core counts differ: the Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts. The Core Ultra 9 288V has a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 4.60 GHz.
Cache configurations also 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 9 288V 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 L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 9 288V translates to 20 MB total L2 across 8 cores, though the database records the per-core figure.
Memory support is another differentiator. The Core 5 320 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus delivering 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X but uses a dual-channel bus, delivering 136.5 GB/s, more than double the bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory.
PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count. The Core 5 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 288V provides 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 Core Ultra 9 288V uses Arc 140V.
The Core Ultra 9 288V has a higher TDP of 30 watts compared to 15 watts for the Core 5 320, though the database records only these thermal design power figures without additional power consumption data.
The Verdict
The benchmark data points to a clear hierarchy between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the superior performer in every recorded measurement, with an average benchmark score 28.8% higher than the Core 5 320. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-11900F with a delta of -0.2%, the AMD EPYC 4124P at +0.2%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H at -0.2%, placing it in the same performance class as those desktop and mobile parts.
The Intel Core 5 320, with an average score of 18023, sits close to the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (17994, +0.2%), the Intel Core 5 120U (17898, +0.7%), the Intel Core i5-1334U (18154, -0.7%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17891, +0.7%). This places the Core 5 320 in a much lower performance tier.
For users prioritizing multi-threaded workloads such as 3D rendering, video encoding, or data compression, the Core Ultra 9 288V provides margins of 20% to 40% over the Core 5 320. For single-threaded responsiveness, the advantage shrinks to roughly 1% to 9%, making the Core 5 320 a viable option for basic office tasks and web browsing. The Core 5 320 also has a lower 15 W TDP, suggesting it may fit into more power-constrained designs, though the database does not record sustained power behavior.
The Core Ultra 9 288V is the choice for performance-oriented mobile systems. The Core 5 320 is the choice for lighter workloads where the performance delta is acceptable and the lower TDP is prioritized.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V scores 1950 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Core 5 320 scores 1926, a delta of 1.2%. This is the smallest single-core gap between the two processors.
Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 9 288V in multi-threaded Cinebench R23?
A: The Core Ultra 9 288V scores 10178 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 5 320 scores 6197. This represents a 39.1% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 288V.
Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?
A: The Intel Core 5 320 supports a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V supports a dual-channel bus with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Do both processors use the same process node?
A: Yes, both are built on a 3 nm process node. The Core 5 320 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 288V is fabricated by TSMC.
Q: What is the core and thread count for each processor?
A: The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading.
Q: Which processor has a higher PassMark single-thread score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V scores 4274 in PassMark single-thread, while the Intel Core 5 320 scores 4045, a delta of 5.4% in favor of the Core Ultra 9 288V.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Core Ultra 9 288V wins all 17 head-to-head tests. The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 288V scores 195 versus 110 for the Core 5 320, a 43.6% advantage. This test measures integer prime calculation, indicating a strong lead in integer arithmetic throughput.
Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the second-largest gap at 39.1%, with scores of 10178 and 6197. This test reflects sustained multi-threaded rendering performance, and the 8-core, 5.10 GHz boost design of the Core Ultra 9 288V delivers substantially more throughput than the 6-core, 4.60 GHz boost design of the Core 5 320.
PassMark floating-point math favors the Core Ultra 9 288V by 28.7%, with scores of 59536 versus 42440. PassMark integer math follows a similar pattern at 26.6%, with scores of 44019 versus 32323. These math workloads show the Core Ultra 9 288V providing roughly a quarter to a third more arithmetic performance.
PassMark physics shows a 25.4% delta, with the Core Ultra 9 288V scoring 1637 against 1221. PassMark data compression records a 20.2% delta, with scores of 186521 and 148779. PassMark random string sorting shows a 20.3% delta, with 22622 versus 18038. PassMark data encryption records a 22.3% delta, with 14141 versus 10984.
Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 22.7% delta, with the Core Ultra 9 288V scoring 7069 against 5462. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 33.4% delta, with 1583 versus 1054. PassMark multithread shows a 22% delta, with 19810 versus 15450. PassMark extended instructions shows a 15.1% delta, with 15613 versus 13262.
The single-core tests show smaller gaps. Cinebench R20 single-core has a 22.7% delta, with 997 versus 771. Cinebench R15 single-core has an 8.5% delta, with 301.5 versus 276. PassMark single-thread has a 5.4% delta, with 4274 versus 4045. Cinebench R23 single-core has the smallest delta at 1.2%, with 1950 versus 1926.
Across all tests, the Core Ultra 9 288V consistently outperforms the Core 5 320, with single-core margins ranging from 1.2% to 22.7% and multi-core margins ranging from 15.1% to 43.6%. The data confirms that the Core Ultra 9 288V is the stronger processor across every workload category recorded in the database.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320 and 3.30 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 288V. Boost clocks are 4.60 GHz and 5.10 GHz, respectively.
The Core 5 320 has a 15 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 9 288V has a 30 W TDP. They use different sockets: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 320 and Intel BGA 2833 for the Core Ultra 9 288V. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core Ultra 9 288V uses Lunar Lake. The Core Ultra 9 288V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 5 320 has no series designation.
Cache configurations differ in L2 and L3. The Core 5 320 has 2.5 MB of L2 and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 288V has 2.5 MB per core of L2 and 12 MB of shared L3. L1 cache is 192 KB for the Core 5 320 and 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 9 288V.
Memory support differs: the Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X. The memory bus is single-channel for the Core 5 320 and dual-channel for the Core Ultra 9 288V, with bandwidths of 59.7 GB/s and 136.5 GB/s, respectively. PCIe support is Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 5 320 and Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Core Ultra 9 288V.
Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 9 288V uses Arc 140V. The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 9 288V. Release dates differ, with the Core 5 320 released on 2026-04-15 and the Core Ultra 9 288V released on 2024-09-23. Both processors are active in production, have locked multipliers, and do not support ECC memory.