Intel Core 5 320 vs Intel Processor U301L Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Processor U301L do not share any head-to-head benchmark results in the database. The Core 5 320 has a full suite of recorded measurements across Cinebench and Passmark tests, while the U301L has no benchmark entries at all. This absence of direct comparison data means the analysis must rely on the architectural and specification differences recorded for each part.

The Core 5 320 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6197 and a single-core score of 1926. Its Cinebench R20 results show 5462 multi-core and 771 single-core, while Cinebench R15 records 1054 multi-core and 276 single-core. Passmark results include a multithread score of 15450, a single-thread score of 4045, integer math at 32323, floating point math at 42440, and extended instructions at 13262. Data compression in Passmark reaches 148779, data encryption hits 10984, random string sorting scores 18038, physics scores 1221, and find prime numbers scores 110.

The U301L has no such measurements in the database. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and its percentile versus all CPUs is 50, compared to the Core 5 320's percentile of 72. The Core 5 320 holds an average benchmark score of 18023 across its tests, placing it near several known rivals: the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17994 with a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core 5 120U at 17898 with a delta of 0.7 percent, the Intel Core i5-1334U at 18154 with a delta of -0.7 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17891 with a delta of 0.7 percent. These margins are tight, indicating the Core 5 320 performs within a narrow band around those established processors.

Because the U301L lacks benchmark records, no head-to-head wins can be assigned to either part. The database shows winsA as 0 and winsB as 0, confirming that no direct test results exist for comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 320 wins in every measurable category, simply because it is the only one of the two with recorded performance data. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6197 and Passmark multithread score of 15450 indicate strong parallel workload capability. The single-thread Passmark score of 4045 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1926 point to solid single-thread execution as well. For encryption and compression tasks, the Core 5 320 records 10984 and 148779 respectively, while integer math at 32323 and floating point math at 42440 cover general compute workloads.

The U301L cannot be said to win any category from the recorded data. Its empty benchmark array means there is no evidence of performance in any tested workload. What the data does show is that the U301L uses a dual-channel memory bus, supports both DDR4 and DDR5, and has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, all of which are architectural advantages in memory configuration. However, advantages in configuration do not translate into measured wins without benchmark results.

For users focused on recorded performance, the Core 5 320 is the only option with verified numbers. For users focused on platform features, the U301L offers dual-channel memory support and a broader memory type compatibility, but the database contains no tests to validate how those features affect actual workload results.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core 5 320. It has a full set of benchmark scores, a percentile of 72 versus all CPUs, and an average benchmark score of 18023. The Intel Processor U301L has no recorded scores, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile of 50. Any selection based on measured performance must go to the Core 5 320.

The Core 5 320 also leads on core count with 6 cores versus 5, a boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 2.20 GHz, a base clock of 1.50 GHz versus 1.20 GHz, and a smaller 3 nm process node compared to 10 nm. Its integrated graphics are listed as Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units, while the U301L uses UHD Graphics 64EU. The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the U301L supports DDR4 and DDR5.

The U301L counters with a dual-channel memory bus versus the Core 5 320's single-channel bus, 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 6 MB, a Socket 1700 platform versus BGA 1516, and a launch MSRP of $107. The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340. The U301L also uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm node, while the Core 5 320 uses Wildcat Lake on 3 nm.

For raw performance evidence, the Core 5 320 is the clear pick. For a lower launch MSRP and dual-channel memory support, the U301L has documented advantages, but no performance data to support a claim of better execution in any workload.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Processor U301L have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The U301L has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals recorded.

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 320 compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The Core 5 320 averages 18023, which is 0.2 percent above the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (17994), 0.7 percent above the Intel Core 5 120U (17898), 0.7 percent above the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17891), and 0.7 percent below the Intel Core i5-1334U (18154).

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The U301L has 5 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 320 boosts to 4.60 GHz. The U301L boosts to 2.20 GHz.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The U301L supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Core 5 320 is built on a 3 nm node. The U301L is built on a 10 nm node.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architecture families. The Core 5 320 is based on Wildcat Lake, listed under the Core 5 generation, while the U301L is based on Raptor Lake, listed under the Intel Processor generation. The Core 5 320 uses a 3 nm process node, while the U301L uses a 10 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Cache layouts 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 U301L has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 design on the U301L contrasts with the Core 5 320's aggregate L2 figure.

Memory architecture also differs. The Core 5 320 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The U301L uses a dual-channel memory bus with no recorded bandwidth figure and supports DDR4 and DDR5. PCIe connectivity shows the U301L with Gen 4 and 8 lanes, while the Core 5 320 has Gen 4 and 6 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units. The U301L uses UHD Graphics 64EU. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The socket platforms are different: the Core 5 320 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the U301L uses Intel Socket 1700. Both are classified as mobile segment parts and both are listed as Active in production status.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear differences between the two parts. The Core 5 320 has 6 cores and 6 threads, a base clock of 1.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The U301L has 5 cores and 6 threads, a base clock of 1.20 GHz, and a boost clock of 2.20 GHz. Both have a TDP of 15.

The Core 5 320 has a launch MSRP of $340, a release date of 2026-04-15, and a part number of SAE3H. The U301L has a launch MSRP of $107, a release date of 2024-04-07, and a part number of SRPKFQ5CW.

Memory support differs: the Core 5 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The U301L supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no recorded bandwidth. PCIe lane counts differ at 6 lanes for the Core 5 320 and 8 lanes for the U301L, both Gen 4.

Cache totals differ: the Core 5 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The U301L has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Sockets differ: BGA 1516 for the Core 5 320, Socket 1700 for the U301L. Process nodes differ: 3 nm versus 10 nm. The integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units on the Core 5 320, versus UHD Graphics 64EU on the U301L. The percentile versus all CPUs is 72 for the Core 5 320 and 50 for the U301L, with average benchmark scores of 18023 and 0 respectively.