Intel Core i3-10320 vs Intel Core i3-1315U Comparison

The benchmark data clearly separates these two Intel Core i3 processors, with the mobile Raptor Lake-U part winning 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the desktop Comet Lake chip claiming three decisive victories in specific workloads. The Intel Core i3-1315U posts a higher average benchmark score of 15022 compared to 14852 for the Intel Core i3-10320, a 1.1% gap that places the newer mobile chip slightly ahead in overall standing. Both CPUs sit at the 69th percentile among all tested processors, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier despite their architectural differences. The data shows a clear split: the 1315U dominates in compute-heavy and single-threaded tasks, while the 10320 holds advantages in memory-intensive and string-processing operations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in this comparison belongs to the Intel Core i3-1315U in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 7583 against 3458 for the Intel Core i3-10320 — a massive 119.3% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is a category blowout that suggests the newer architecture handles cryptographic workloads with far greater efficiency. Floating-point math also favors the 1315U significantly, with a score of 27012 versus 19483, translating to a 38.6% lead. Integer math follows the same pattern, as the 1315U posts 37644 against 31071 for the 10320, a 21.2% margin.

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story across all six tests, with the 1315U winning every single one by roughly 10%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 1315U scores 9374 compared to 8486 for the 10320, a 10.5% advantage. Single-core R23 shows the 1315U at 1323 versus 1198, a 10.4% edge. The R20 results mirror this exactly: 3937 to 3564 for a 10.5% multi-core win, and 555 to 503 for a 10.3% single-core win. Even in the older R15 tests, the pattern holds at 944 against 855 (10.4%) and 133 against 120 (10.8%). These consistent double-digit margins across rendering workloads indicate the 1315U's two extra cores and newer process node deliver tangible compute advantages.

PassMark multi-thread performance puts the 1315U ahead at 11482 versus 9982, a 15% margin, while single-thread performance shows a 19% lead at 3380 against 2841. The 1315U also wins in prime number finding by 28.1% (41 to 32) and in physics by a narrower 2.5% (706 to 689).

The Intel Core i3-10320 claims its three wins in areas that appear tied to memory bandwidth and cache efficiency. Data compression shows the 10320 at 140255 versus 126436 for the 1315U, a 9.9% advantage. Extended instructions favor the 10320 at 9284 against 7413, a 20.2% margin. Random string sorting is the 10320's biggest win at 17821 versus 14028, a 21.3% lead. These results suggest that while the 1315U excels at raw arithmetic and rendering, the 10320's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and desktop-grade memory subsystem give it an edge in data movement and compression tasks.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the Intel Core i3-1315U is the superior processor for the vast majority of workloads. It wins 14 of 17 tests, including every Cinebench benchmark, all math-related PassMark tests, and both single-thread and multi-thread PassMark scores. The average benchmark score of 15022 for the 1315U versus 14852 for the 10320 confirms this overall advantage, even though the 1.1% delta places them in the same percentile tier at 69. The 1315U's launch MSRP is $309, and it carries a 15W TDP compared to the 10320's 91W TDP, which makes its performance lead even more notable given the power envelope difference.

The Intel Core i3-10320 is not without merit, and its three wins are meaningful for specific use cases. Data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting are all tasks where the 10320 outperforms the 1315U by margins ranging from 9.9% to 21.3%. Users who prioritize those specific workloads should consider the 10320. However, the overall data is unambiguous: the 1315U is the stronger all-around processor, with particularly large margins in encryption (119.3%) and floating-point math (38.6%) that make it the clear choice for compute-intensive applications.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-1315U is the winner for rendering, video encoding, scientific computing, and any workload that leverages multiple cores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9374 against 8486 for the 10320, combined with a 15% win in PassMark multi-thread, makes it the better option for content creation and parallel processing. The 1315U also dominates in encryption tasks, with its 7583 score nearly doubling the 10320's 3458, making it preferable for security-related operations. Single-thread performance favors the 1315U by 19% in PassMark and by roughly 10% across all Cinebench single-core tests, which benefits everyday responsiveness and lightly-threaded applications.

The Intel Core i3-10320 takes the crown in three specific areas. Its 140255 data compression score versus 126436 for the 1315U makes it the better choice for file archiving and compression-heavy workflows. The 10320's 9284 extended instructions score against 7413 for the 1315U indicates an advantage in workloads that leverage specialized CPU instruction sets. Random string sorting at 17821 versus 14028 suggests the 10320 handles certain data organization tasks more efficiently, possibly due to its higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and the desktop platform's memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. Users running these specific task types on a desktop platform with Socket 1200 compatibility will find the 10320 adequate, but the data shows its advantages are narrow and specialized.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-1315U has an average benchmark score of 15022, compared to 14852 for the Intel Core i3-10320, giving the 1315U a 1.1% lead.

Q: How many head-to-head benchmarks does each processor win?

A: The Intel Core i3-1315U wins 14 of 17 tests, while the Intel Core i3-10320 wins 3 tests.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark data encryption, where the Intel Core i3-1315U scores 7583 versus 3458 for the Intel Core i3-10320, a 119.3% advantage. The largest win for the 10320 is in random string sorting at 17821 versus 14028, a 21.3% margin.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-1315U and the Intel Core i3-10320 are at the 69th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i3-1315U wins with a score of 9374 against 8486 for the Intel Core i3-10320, a 10.5% advantage.

Q: What are the closest rival CPUs to these two processors?

A: The nearest rival to the Intel Core i3-1315U is the AMD EPYC 74F3 with a 0.7% delta, and the nearest rival to the Intel Core i3-10320 is the Intel Core i7-9750H with a -0.2% delta.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different Intel architectures and market segments. The Intel Core i3-1315U is built on Raptor Lake architecture with a Raptor Lake-U codename and uses a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core i3-10320 uses Comet Lake architecture with a 14 nm process node. This process node difference is the foundation for many of the performance disparities seen in the benchmarks, as the 1315U delivers higher performance at a much lower 15W TDP compared to the 91W TDP of the 10320.

Core and thread counts differ significantly: the 1315U features 6 cores and 8 threads, while the 10320 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This gives the 1315U two additional physical cores, explaining its substantial wins in multi-core workloads like Cinebench R23 where it scores 9374 versus 8486. The cache configuration also differs, with the 1315U offering 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, while the 10320 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. Total L3 cache is 10 MB shared on the 1315U versus 8 MB shared on the 10320.

The integrated graphics differ as well, with the 1315U featuring UHD Graphics 64EU and the 10320 featuring UHD Graphics 630. Memory support shows the 1315U handling both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 10320 supports only DDR4. The 1315U uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes, while the 10320 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. These architectural differences explain the benchmark results: the 1315U's newer process, more cores, and larger caches drive its compute wins, while the 10320's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz versus 1.20 GHz for the 1315U helps in certain single-threaded data tasks.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core i3-1315U and Intel Core i3-10320 differ across nearly every core specification. The 1315U has 6 cores and 8 threads, while the 10320 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are dramatically different: the 1315U runs at 1.20 GHz, while the 10320 runs at 3.80 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with the 1315U at 4.50 GHz and the 10320 at 4.60 GHz. The TDP difference is substantial, with the 1315U at 15W and the 10320 at 91W.

The socket and platform differ completely: the 1315U uses Intel BGA 1744 and targets the mobile market segment, while the 10320 uses Intel Socket 1200 and targets the desktop segment. Process nodes differ at 10 nm for the 1315U and 14 nm for the 10320. Cache sizes vary across all levels, with the 1315U having 80 KB L1 per core and 1.25 MB L2 per core versus 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core for the 10320. L3 cache is 10 MB shared on the 1315U and 8 MB shared on the 10320.

Memory support shows the 1315U accepting both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 10320 is limited to DDR4. The 10320 has a stated memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while no bandwidth figure is listed for the 1315U. PCIe capabilities differ with the 1315U at Gen 4 with 8 lanes and the 10320 at Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 64EU for the 1315U and UHD Graphics 630 for the 10320. Release dates differ by nearly three years, with the 1315U launching on 2023-01-03 and the 10320 launching on 2020-04-29. The 1315U has a launch MSRP of $309, while no launch MSRP is listed for the 10320. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are currently marked as Active in production status.