Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H are both mobile processors from Intel, but they occupy very different performance tiers. The database records show the Core Ultra X7 358H winning all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the Core 5 320 failing to secure a single win. This dominance is reflected in their average benchmark scores: the Core Ultra X7 358H averages 40,967 points against the Core 5 320's 18,023 points, a difference that places them in different percentile brackets relative to all CPUs, 87th versus 72nd.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 320 does not win any benchmark comparisons in the recorded data. Every single test, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark math and encryption workloads, is won by the Core Ultra X7 358H. The data shows no use case where the Core 5 320 comes out ahead, so its positioning relies entirely on other characteristics such as lower thermal design power and a different memory architecture.

The Core Ultra X7 358H, by contrast, wins across the entire workload spectrum. Its largest advantages appear in multi-threaded and heavily parallel tasks, where the core count difference becomes decisive. The data indicates that the Core Ultra X7 358H is the appropriate choice for applications that scale with thread count, such as 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific computing. Its performance in single-threaded tasks is also superior, but the margin is much smaller, suggesting that the Core 5 320 is comparatively closer in lightly threaded workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node and are both manufactured by Intel, but their underlying designs diverge significantly. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core Ultra X7 358H is based on Panther Lake, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant. The Core Ultra X7 358H is part of the Core Ultra Series 3 generation, whereas the Core 5 320 belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation.

Core count is the most obvious difference. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyper-threading, but with 10 additional physical cores. Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra X7 358H as well, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to 1.50 GHz and 4.60 GHz on the Core 5 320.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and structure. 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 X7 358H lists 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core notation for the Core Ultra X7 358H indicates a different cache distribution, and the total L3 capacity is three times larger.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 5 320 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X memory, but over a dual-channel bus, resulting in 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth, more than 2.5 times the Core 5 320's figure. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 5 320 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra X7 358H uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are another point of divergence. The Core 5 320 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra X7 358H includes Arc B390 graphics. The sockets differ, with the Core 5 320 on Intel BGA 1516 and the Core Ultra X7 358H on Intel BGA 2540.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra X7 358H wins every recorded comparison, but the margins vary widely by workload. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 18,747 against the Core 5 320's 6,197, a delta of -66.9% from the Core 5 320's perspective. This is the largest multi-core margin in the Cinebench suite. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 3,027 versus 1,054, a -65.2% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core is closer in relative terms at -54.5%, with scores of 12,011 and 5,462.

Single-core Cinebench results are much tighter. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 2,080 against 1,926, a -7.4% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 301.5 versus 276, a -8.5% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core is the outlier, with a -54.5% delta that matches the multi-core margin, scoring 1,695 against 771.

PassMark results reinforce the multi-core dominance. The data compression test shows 332,508 versus 148,779, a -55.3% delta. Integer math shows 83,147 versus 32,323, a -61.1% delta. Floating point math shows 103,842 versus 42,440, a -59.1% delta. The find prime numbers test shows the largest gap at -67.4%, with 337 versus 110. Physics testing shows a -59.6% delta, with 3,021 versus 1,221.

Encryption and extended instructions also favor the Core Ultra X7 358H substantially. Data encryption scores 26,046 versus 10,984, a -57.8% delta. Extended instructions score 27,274 versus 13,262, a -51.4% delta. Random string sorting shows 40,357 versus 18,038, a -55.3% delta. The multithread PassMark score is 33,802 versus 15,450, a -54.3% delta.

The closest margin in the entire set is PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 4,124 against 4,045, a -1.9% delta. This near-tie in single-thread performance suggests that the architectural clock advantage is modest, and the Core 5 320's single-core efficiency is competitive. The single-thread and singlethread entries are duplicates, both recording the same scores and deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache capacity?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 320 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H delivers 153.6 GB/s over a dual-channel LPDDR5X bus. The Core 5 320 delivers 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core 5 320 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 337 against the Core 5 320's 110, a -67.4% delta.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Core 5 320 wins?

A: No. The Core Ultra X7 358H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 320 | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 6 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc B390 |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | null |

The Core Ultra X7 358H also holds a higher percentile ranking at 87 versus 72 for the Core 5 320. Its average benchmark score of 40,967 places it near competitors like the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, while the Core 5 320's 18,023 average sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core 5 120U. The Core Ultra X7 358H was released earlier in January 2026, while the Core 5 320 followed in April 2026.