Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus records an average benchmark score of 79574, while the Intel Core 5 320 records 18023. This places the Ultra 9 in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 2356 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 18.3% higher than the Intel Core 5 320's score of 1926. The delta is consistent across other single-core tests, with the R15 test showing an 18.8% advantage and the R20 test showing a 74.2% advantage for the Ultra 9.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor according to the database?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 sits within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600, Intel Core 5 120U, Intel Core i5-1334U, and AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is within 1.4% of the Intel Core i9-14900KF, AMD EPYC 7413, Intel Core i9-14900K, and Intel Xeon w5-2565X.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 320 does not list ECC memory support in its specifications.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth over a dual-channel DDR5 bus. The Intel Core 5 320 provides 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X bus.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus represent different tiers within Intel's mobile lineup. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Both processors are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: Intel manufactures the Core 5 320, while TSMC manufactures the Ultra 9 290HX Plus.

The core configuration diverges sharply. The Core 5 320 contains 6 cores and 6 threads, indicating no hyperthreading. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus contains 24 cores and 24 threads, also without hyperthreading but with four times the physical core count. The Ultra 9 also carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 5 does not list transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache hierarchies are fundamentally different. 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 9 290HX Plus lists L1 cache as 192 KB per core, L2 cache as 3 MB per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 9 represents a significant increase in available cache per thread.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 5 320 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a single-channel configuration with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 also includes ECC memory support, which the Core 5 lacks.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count. The Core 5 320 uses Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 does not. The socket types differ as well, with the Core 5 using Intel BGA 1516 and the Ultra 9 using Intel BGA 2114.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Core 5 320 wins none of the tests. The margins vary by workload type, with the largest gaps appearing in multi-core and math-heavy tasks.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 39684 against the Core 5's 6197, a delta of 84.4% in favor of the Ultra 9. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 21198 versus 5462, a 74.2% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core records 5981 versus 1054, an 82.4% difference. These results indicate that the Ultra 9's 24 cores provide a substantial scaling advantage over the Core 5's 6 cores in rendering workloads.

Single-core performance is closer but still favors the Ultra 9 consistently. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2356 versus 1926, an 18.3% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 340 versus 276, an 18.8% advantage. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a larger 74.2% gap, with 2992 versus 771. PassMark single-thread results show 4951 versus 4045, also an 18.3% advantage for the Ultra 9. The single-core deltas in the 18% range suggest the Ultra 9's higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus 4.60 GHz contributes to the advantage.

Math and integer workloads amplify the difference. PassMark integer math scores 164839 for the Ultra 9 versus 32323 for the Core 5, an 80.4% gap. Floating-point math shows 201773 versus 42440, a 79% gap. Extended instructions score 51290 versus 13262, a 74.1% gap. Prime number finding records 519 versus 110, a 78.8% gap. These results indicate the Ultra 9's core count and memory bandwidth translate directly into higher throughput for computational tasks.

Data handling tests follow the same trend. PassMark data compression scores 658724 for the Ultra 9 versus 148779 for the Core 5, a 77.4% gap. Data encryption scores 50008 versus 10984, a 78% gap. Random string sorting scores 80327 versus 18038, a 77.5% gap. Multithread scoring shows 59439 versus 15450, a 74% gap. Physics scores 3387 versus 1221, a 64% gap, which is the smallest delta in the entire comparison but still a substantial margin.

The average benchmark score difference reinforces the head-to-head results. The Ultra 9's 79574 average is roughly 4.4 times the Core 5's 18023. The percentile rankings place the Ultra 9 at 95 versus the Core 5 at 72, indicating the Ultra 9 sits near the top of the database while the Core 5 sits in the upper-middle range.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus outperforms the Intel Core 5 320 in every recorded test, with multi-core deltas ranging from 64% to 84.4% and single-core deltas around 18%. The Ultra 9's 24 cores, 36 MB of shared L3 cache, dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s, and Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes position it as a high-end mobile processor. Its 95th percentile ranking and average score of 79574 place it alongside desktop-class parts like the Intel Core i9-14900KF and AMD EPYC 7413.

The Core 5 320, with 6 cores, 6 MB of shared L3 cache, single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s, and Gen 4 PCIe with 6 lanes, delivers a fraction of the throughput. Its 72nd percentile ranking and average score of 18023 place it near parts like the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core i5-1334U. The Core 5's 15 W TDP versus the Ultra 9's 55 W TDP indicates a power-oriented design, though the database does not provide efficiency metrics to quantify the trade-off.

For workloads that depend on multi-core scaling, such as rendering, compression, encryption, and math processing, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the appropriate choice based on the recorded scores. The Core 5 320 remains viable for single-threaded tasks where its 4.60 GHz boost clock and lower power envelope may be sufficient, but the data shows it trails the Ultra 9 even in those scenarios. The Ultra 9's unlocked multiplier and ECC support add further capabilities for users who require overclocking or error-correcting memory, while the Core 5 lacks both features.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

| Specification | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus |

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

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 24 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

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

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not listed | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB per core |

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

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| 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, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | Not listed |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-03-16 |

| Part number | SAE3H | SADSS |

The Core 5 320 launches at a $340 MSRP, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus has no listed launch MSRP in the database. Both processors are marked as Active in production status and target the mobile market segment.