Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the Intel Core 5 320 across all four shared benchmark tests. The Core 5 320 wins all head-to-head comparisons, with the largest margin appearing in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 320 scores 6197 against the N150's 2590.5, a delta of 139.2%. The single-core result in the same test shows a 106% advantage, with scores of 1926 and 935 respectively. These are substantial gaps, indicating the Core 5 320 delivers more than double the multi-core performance of the N150 in this specific workload.

The older Cinebench R15 test confirms the same pattern. In multi-core, the Core 5 320 scores 1054 versus 422.5 for the N150, a 149.5% delta. Single-core R15 shows 276 against 153.15, an 80.2% improvement. The delta percentages are consistent across both Cinebench versions, suggesting the performance gap is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental throughput difference.

Looking at the broader database context, the Core 5 320's average benchmark score is 18023, placing it at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17994 (0.2% delta), the Intel Core 5 120U at 17898 (0.7% delta), and the Intel Core i5-1334U at 18154 (-0.7% delta). This positions the Core 5 320 in a competitive tier with older desktop-class six-core processors. The N150, in contrast, has an average score of 1025, sitting at the 28th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T at 1024 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i3-4340 at 1026 (-0.1% delta), placing it in the range of older low-end desktop parts.

The Core 5 320 also records a Passmark multi-thread score of 15450 and a single-thread score of 4045. The N150 has no recorded Passmark scores in the database, so direct comparison in those tests is not possible. However, the Cinebench data alone provides a clear picture: the Core 5 320 holds a commanding lead in both single-core and multi-core throughput, with margins ranging from 80.2% to 149.5%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design families. The Core 5 320 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process node, while the N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture built on a 10 nm node. This process difference directly contributes to the performance and efficiency gap between them. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, whereas the N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so core count equals thread count in both cases.

Cache configurations differ in structure. The Core 5 320 has a 192 KB L1 cache, a 2.5 MB L2 cache, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. The N150 has a 96 KB per-core L1 cache, a 2 MB shared L2 cache, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. Both share the same total L3 capacity, but the L1 and L2 allocations are organized differently. The Core 5 320's larger aggregate L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to its single-core performance advantage.

Clock speeds show a wide divergence. The Core 5 320 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The N150 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The N150's extremely low base clock suggests it is designed for minimal idle power consumption, with burst performance available through boost. The Core 5 320's higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz directly supports its superior single-core scores.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, also single-channel, but with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 320's higher memory bandwidth aligns with its higher performance class. The N150's support for older DDR4 memory makes it more compatible with existing platforms, while the Core 5 320 is limited to newer memory types.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Core 5 320 has Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the N150 has Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The newer PCIe generation on the Core 5 320 provides higher per-lane bandwidth, though the N150 offers more total lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the N150 uses UHD Graphics 730. Both are integrated solutions with no separate GPU data recorded.

The thermal design power (TDP) figures show a notable difference: the Core 5 320 is rated at 15 watts, while the N150 is rated at 6 watts. This 9-watt gap reflects the N150's focus on low-power operation, while the Core 5 320 targets higher sustained performance within a mobile envelope. The Core 5 320 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the N150 uses Intel BGA 1264, meaning they are not socket-compatible.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the Intel Core 5 320 is the clear performance winner in every measured category. The data shows a 139.2% multi-core advantage in Cinebench R23 and an 80.2% single-core advantage in Cinebench R15. The Core 5 320 also holds a 106% single-core lead in Cinebench R23. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the Core 5 320 is the only choice based on these numbers.

The N150, however, operates at a 6-watt TDP compared to the Core 5 320's 15 watts. The recorded data shows the N150 trades substantial performance for a lower power envelope. Its 4-core design and 3.60 GHz boost clock deliver much lower scores, but the power consumption difference suggests the N150 may fit systems where thermal and energy constraints dominate over performance.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Core 5 320 sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, placing it above the majority of recorded processors. The N150 sits at the 28th percentile, below the majority. The nearest rival data confirms the Core 5 320 competes with processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core i5-1334U, while the N150 competes with much older parts like the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and Intel Core i7-5650U.

The Core 5 320's launch MSRP is $340, which the database records as a one-time data point. The N150 has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiating factor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 scores 1926, while the Intel Processor N150 scores 935. The Core 5 320 leads by 106%.

Q: What is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R15?

A: The Core 5 320 scores 1054 and the N150 scores 422.5, giving the Core 5 320 a 149.5% advantage.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the N150 uses Intel BGA 1264.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5.

Q: How do their TDP ratings compare?

A: The Core 5 320 is rated at 15 watts, and the N150 is rated at 6 watts.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 320 wins in all four recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its largest win is in Cinebench R15 multi-core with a 149.5% delta, followed closely by Cinebench R23 multi-core at 139.2%. Single-core wins are smaller but still substantial: 106% in Cinebench R23 and 80.2% in Cinebench R15. The Core 5 320's advantage is consistent across both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads, indicating broad superiority in compute tasks.

The N150 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its only recorded advantages are architectural: a lower 6-watt TDP, support for DDR4 memory, and 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes compared to the Core 5 320's 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. For systems where power consumption is the primary constraint, the N150's 6-watt rating offers a clear efficiency profile. The N150 also supports a wider range of memory types, including older DDR4, which may be relevant for legacy platform compatibility.

The Core 5 320's higher memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s for the N150 supports its performance lead in memory-intensive workloads. Its 4.60 GHz boost clock versus 3.60 GHz for the N150 explains the single-core advantages. The process node difference, 3 nm versus 10 nm, underlies the Core 5 320's ability to deliver higher performance within a 15-watt envelope.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. Core count: 6 for the Core 5 320 versus 4 for the N150. Thread count matches core count for both. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 0.10 GHz. Boost clock: 4.60 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. TDP: 15 watts versus 6 watts. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 1264.

Process node: 3 nm for the Core 5 320 versus 10 nm for the N150. Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Twin Lake. Cache: the Core 5 320 has 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2, while the N150 has 96 KB per-core L1 and 2 MB shared L2. Both have 6 MB shared L3.

Memory support: the Core 5 320 uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The N150 uses DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both are single-channel. PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 5 320, Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the N150. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus UHD Graphics 730.

Release dates differ by over a year: the Core 5 320 was released on 2026-04-15, while the N150 was released on 2024-11-19. The Core 5 320 has a recorded launch MSRP of $340, while the N150 has no recorded MSRP. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both are marked as Active in production status and target the Mobile market segment.