Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the Intel Core 5 320 as the overwhelmingly stronger processor for multi-threaded and content-creation workloads, while the Intel Processor 300 serves as a lower-power desktop entry point with a very different feature set. The Core 5 320 holds a 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs, compared to the 50th percentile for the Processor 300, indicating a substantial performance gap in the database’s aggregate measurements. The Core 5 320 is the clear choice for users whose workloads scale with core count and thread count, given its 6 cores and 6 threads versus the 2 cores and 4 threads of the Processor 300. The Processor 300, by contrast, offers a higher base clock of 3.90 GHz and dual-channel memory support, making it a sensible pick for basic desktop tasks where the Core 5 320’s mobile-oriented design is less relevant. The Core 5 320 targets mobile platforms with a 15 W TDP and BGA 1516 socket, while the Processor 300 is a desktop part on Socket 1700 with a 46 W TDP. Users building a desktop system with dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5 lanes should consider the Processor 300, while those needing portable performance or maximum benchmark scores should focus on the Core 5 320.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 5 320 is built on the Wildcat Lake architecture and uses a 3 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. It features 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its cache layout includes a 192 KB L1 cache, a 2.5 MB L2 cache, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. The processor supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory through a single-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores and uses a Gen 4 PCIe interface with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 320 is a mobile-market part with a 15 W TDP, released in April 2026, and carries the part number SAE3H.

The Intel Processor 300, in contrast, is a Raptor Lake-S desktop processor built on a 10 nm process node. It has only 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no boost clock recorded. Its cache structure differs significantly: an 80 KB per-core L1 cache, a 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache, and a shared 6 MB L3 cache. The Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel memory bus, which is a notable advantage for memory bandwidth in desktop configurations. It uses UHD Graphics 710 for integrated graphics and provides Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes (CPU only). The die size measures 163 mm², and the TDP is 46 W. It was released in January 2024 with part number SRN3J.

The process node difference is stark: 3 nm versus 10 nm, which explains the Core 5 320’s much lower 15 W TDP despite having three times the core count. The Core 5 320 also lacks a recorded die size, while the Processor 300 specifies 163 mm². Both parts have locked multipliers, meaning neither supports overclocking through multiplier adjustment. Neither supports ECC memory. The Core 5 320 uses a BGA 1516 socket, indicating a soldered mobile design, whereas the Processor 300 uses the standard LGA Socket 1700 for desktop motherboards.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data, drawn entirely from the Core 5 320’s recorded results, shows its dominance across nearly every measured workload. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core 5 320 scores 6197, while its single-core score is 1926. The Processor 300 has no recorded benchmarks in the database, so all comparative statements rely on the Core 5 320’s absolute scores and its percentile ranking. The Core 5 320’s average benchmark score of 18023 places it within a tight cluster of rivals: the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 scores 17994 (0.2% behind), the Intel Core 5 120U scores 17898 (0.7% behind), the Intel Core i5-1334U scores 18154 (0.7% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT scores 17891 (0.7% behind). This indicates the Core 5 320 performs competitively with established desktop and mobile processors from previous generations.

The Core 5 320 wins decisively in any workload that leverages multiple cores or threads. Its 6-core, 6-thread configuration delivers a Cinebench R20 multicore score of 5462 and a Cinebench R15 multicore score of 1054. PassMark results further reinforce this: multithread score of 15450, integer math of 32323, floating point math of 42440, and extended instructions of 13262. Data compression and encryption scores of 148779 and 10984, respectively, show strong throughput for archival and security tasks. The single-threaded PassMark score of 4045 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1926 indicate that even lightly threaded applications benefit from the high 4.60 GHz boost clock.

The Processor 300 wins in the desktop platform context. Its dual-channel memory bus and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 give it a memory flexibility advantage, and its PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes far exceeds the Core 5 320’s Gen 4, 6-lane configuration. The higher base clock of 3.90 GHz versus 1.50 GHz suggests better sustained performance in simple, single-threaded tasks that do not scale with core count, though no benchmark data confirms this. The Processor 300 also carries a lower launch MSRP of $82, whereas the Core 5 320 launched at $340, a figure that reflects their different market positions. For desktop builders who prioritize memory bandwidth, PCIe expansion, or budget-conscious builds, the Processor 300 holds clear advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the performance percentile difference between the two?

A: The Core 5 320 ranks in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Processor 300 ranks in the 50th percentile.

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR5. The Core 5 320 also supports LPDDR5X, while the Processor 300 also supports DDR4.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The Core 5 320 has a 15 W TDP, and the Processor 300 has a 46 W TDP.

Q: Which processor uses a newer process node?

A: The Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process node.

Q: What integrated graphics do the two processors feature?

A: The Core 5 320 integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the two processors, and the Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark scores. The analysis therefore rests on the Core 5 320’s absolute results and its rival comparisons. The Core 5 320’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 6197 and single-core score of 1926 demonstrate a strong balance between multi-threaded throughput and single-thread responsiveness. Its Cinebench R20 scores of 5462 multicore and 771 single-core follow the same pattern. The Cinebench R15 results of 1054 multicore and 276 single-core confirm consistency across benchmark generations.

PassMark data for the Core 5 320 shows a multithread score of 15450 and a single-thread score of 4045, with the latter repeated under the singlethread field. The gap between these two figures highlights the processor’s ability to handle parallel workloads efficiently. Integer math scores of 32323 and floating point math scores of 42440 indicate strong computational capability for both general and scientific calculations. The find prime numbers score of 110 is notably low, suggesting that this particular workload does not favor the architecture, but the random string sorting score of 18038 shows solid performance in data organization tasks. Data compression (148779) and encryption (10984) scores round out a profile that excels at data-intensive operations.

Comparing the Core 5 320 to its nearest rivals, the average benchmark score of 18023 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 1600’s 17994, a delta of 0.2%. The Core 5 120U trails by 0.7% with a score of 17898, and the Ryzen 5 3600XT also trails by 0.7% at 17891. The Intel Core i5-1334U leads by 0.7% with 18154. These margins are small, indicating that the Core 5 320 delivers performance on par with mid-range processors from previous generations, despite its mobile form factor. The Processor 300, lacking any benchmark data, cannot be placed in this comparison numerically, but its 50th percentile ranking versus the Core 5 320’s 72nd percentile suggests a substantial overall performance deficit.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Core 5 320 offers 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Processor 300 offers 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 320 and 3.90 GHz for the Processor 300, with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz recorded only for the Core 5 320. TDP ratings are 15 W versus 46 W. The sockets differ completely: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 320 and Intel Socket 1700 for the Processor 300. Process nodes are 3 nm and 10 nm, respectively. The Core 5 320’s cache includes a 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2, while the Processor 300 specifies 80 KB per-core L1 and 1.25 MB per-core L2. Both share a 6 MB L3 cache.

Memory support diverges: the Core 5 320 uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Processor 300 uses DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth figure recorded. PCIe capabilities favor the Processor 300 with Gen 5 and 16 lanes, versus Gen 4 and 6 lanes for the Core 5 320. Integrated graphics differ as well, with Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) on the Core 5 320 and UHD Graphics 710 on the Processor 300. Market segments are mobile for the Core 5 320 and desktop for the Processor 300. Release dates are April 2026 for the Core 5 320 and January 2024 for the Processor 300. The launch MSRP is $340 for the Core 5 320 and $82 for the Processor 300. Both have locked multipliers and no ECC support. The Processor 300 has a recorded die size of 163 mm², while the Core 5 320 does not. Part numbers are SAE3H and SRN3J, respectively.