Intel Core i3-10320 vs Intel Core i5-11400H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an overwhelmingly one-sided picture. The Intel Core i5-11400H wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the only exception being a narrow loss in the PassMark physics test. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story about where the i5-11400H excels and where the i3-10320 manages to stay competitive.

The most dramatic gap appears in PassMark data encryption, where the i5-11400H scores 9309 against the i3-10320's 3458, a staggering 169.2% difference. This suggests the newer architecture handles cryptographic workloads with far greater efficiency, likely due to hardware-level improvements rather than just raw core count. Similarly, integer math shows a 71.5% advantage for the i5-11400H (53286 vs 31071), and floating-point math follows with a 64.6% lead (32060 vs 19483). These are not marginal improvements; they represent fundamental throughput differences.

Cinebench results are equally lopsided but surprisingly consistent. Every Cinebench iteration, whether R15, R20, or R23, and whether single-core or multi-core, shows the i5-11400H ahead by approximately 51.5% to 51.7%. For example, Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 12859 for the i5-11400H versus 8486 for the i3-10320, while single-core shows 1815 versus 1198. This uniformity across different rendering workloads indicates the performance gap is structural, not workload-specific.

The smaller margins are equally informative. PassMark single-thread performance shows only a 4.7% advantage for the i5-11400H (2975 vs 2841), suggesting that per-core IPC improvements are modest. The i3-10320's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz helps it stay close in lightly threaded tasks. Random string sorting shows a 26.3% gap (22512 vs 17821), while data compression shows 36.1% (190855 vs 140255). Find prime numbers, a heavily integer-dependent test, shows 46.9% (47 vs 32).

The single win for the i3-10320 comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 689 against the i5-11400H's 678, a 1.6% edge. This is a minor victory, but it hints that the i3-10320's higher clock speeds can occasionally overcome the i5-11400H's architectural advantages in specific physics simulation workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations and fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-11400H uses the Tiger Lake-H architecture built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the i3-10320 uses the older Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm node. This process difference explains much of the efficiency gap, though the i5-11400H is also a mobile part with a 35 W TDP versus the i3-10320's 91 W desktop TDP.

Core configurations differ substantially. The i5-11400H offers 6 cores and 12 threads, while the i3-10320 provides 4 cores and 8 threads. This 50% core advantage is the primary driver behind the multi-threaded benchmark deltas. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the i5-11400H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-10320 has smaller per-core caches at 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2, with only 8 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 cache on the i5-11400H likely contributes to its data-heavy workload advantages.

Memory bandwidth further separates them. The i5-11400H supports 51.2 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s for the i3-10320, a meaningful difference for memory-bound applications. Both support DDR4 with dual-channel memory buses, but the newer platform's higher bandwidth ceiling provides more headroom. PCIe connectivity also differs: the i5-11400H offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the i3-10320 is limited to Gen 3 with 16 lanes. This matters for storage and GPU expansion in real-world systems.

Clock speeds present an interesting contrast. The i3-10320 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost of 4.60 GHz, while the i5-11400H starts lower at 2.20 GHz base but boosts to 4.50 GHz. The i3-10320's higher base clock reflects its desktop positioning and higher TDP, but the i5-11400H's boost clock nearly matches it. Integrated graphics differ as well: the i5-11400H includes UHD Graphics, while the i3-10320 ships with UHD Graphics 630. Socket types are incompatible: the i5-11400H uses Intel BGA 1787 for mobile systems, while the i3-10320 uses Intel Socket 1200 for desktops.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows the i5-11400H winning across nearly every benchmark category, but the degree of dominance varies. For heavily parallel workloads like video rendering, 3D modeling, and code compilation, the i5-11400H's 6-core/12-thread configuration delivers roughly 50% higher Cinebench scores. The 51.5% to 51.7% deltas across all Cinebench tests suggest that users upgrading from the i3-10320 would see nearly identical proportional improvements regardless of which rendering benchmark they use.

Encryption and security workloads show the most extreme differences. The 169.2% advantage in data encryption indicates the i5-11400H has architectural features that dramatically accelerate cryptographic operations, making it the clear choice for VPN servers, secure communications, or any workload involving heavy encryption. Integer-heavy tasks like financial modeling or scientific computing also favor the i5-11400H strongly, with a 71.5% lead in integer math.

The i3-10320's strengths are narrow but real. Its 4.7% advantage in single-thread performance, combined with its 1.6% edge in physics simulation, suggests it can hold its own in lightly threaded applications that depend on raw clock speed rather than core count. Legacy software, older games, or single-threaded productivity tools might not see meaningful differences. The i3-10320's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz also means it responds quickly to burst workloads without relying on boost behavior.

For users with workloads that scale across cores, the choice is unambiguous based on the data. For users running primarily single-threaded office applications, the gap narrows to just 4.7%, making the i3-10320 a reasonable consideration if the platform constraints align. The i3-10320's desktop socket also means it pairs with more traditional motherboards, though the i5-11400H's mobile BGA socket targets laptops and compact systems.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400H is significantly ahead in multi-core workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 12859 versus 8486 for the i3-10320, a 51.5% difference. PassMark multithread shows 15346 versus 9982, a 53.7% advantage.

Q: Is the i3-10320 competitive in single-threaded tasks?

A: Somewhat. The i5-11400H leads PassMark single-thread performance by only 4.7% (2975 vs 2841). Cinebench R23 single-core shows a larger 51.5% gap (1815 vs 1198), but the PassMark result suggests real-world single-thread differences may be smaller.

Q: What causes the massive difference in data encryption scores?

A: The i5-11400H scores 9309 in PassMark data encryption versus 3458 for the i3-10320, a 169.2% improvement. This likely stems from architectural improvements in the Tiger Lake-H design, including newer instruction set support and more efficient cryptographic execution paths.

Q: How do their cache configurations compare?

A: The i5-11400H has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, plus 12 MB shared L3. The i3-10320 has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 8 MB shared L3. The i5-11400H's larger caches, especially L3, help in data-heavy workloads.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboards?

A: No. The i5-11400H uses Intel BGA 1787 for mobile systems, while the i3-10320 uses Intel Socket 1200 for desktops. They are not interchangeable, and the i5-11400H is not suitable for desktop builds without specialized adapters.

Q: What is the TDP difference and why does it matter?

A: The i5-11400H has a 35 W TDP, while the i3-10320 has a 91 W TDP. Despite the lower power budget, the i5-11400H wins nearly every benchmark, demonstrating the efficiency of the 10 nm Tiger Lake process versus the 14 nm Comet Lake design.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-11400H | Intel Core i3-10320 |

|----------------|----------------------|---------------------|

| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 4 / 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 91 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1787 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Tiger Lake | Comet Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 14 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 3, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2021-05-10 | 2020-04-29 |

| Launch MSRP | $250 | Not available |

The Verdict

The benchmark data leaves little room for ambiguity. The Intel Core i5-11400H outperforms the Intel Core i3-10320 in 16 of 17 recorded comparisons, with victories ranging from 4.7% to 169.2%. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the i5-11400H averages 15749 versus 14852 for the i3-10320, a difference of roughly 6%. Both processors sit at the 69th percentile among all CPUs, but the i5-11400H's nearest rivals include AMD EPYC server parts, while the i3-10320 competes with older mobile and desktop chips like the Intel Core i7-9750H and i5-9600K.

The i5-11400H is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing throughput, multi-threaded performance, encryption, or memory bandwidth. Its 51.5% Cinebench advantage and 71.5% integer math lead make it suitable for content creation, scientific computing, and any workload that scales with cores. The 35 W TDP also makes it remarkably efficient, delivering desktop-class performance at less than half the power budget of the i3-10320.

The i3-10320's case rests on its platform and its small single-thread edge. As a desktop part on Socket 1200, it fits into traditional desktop builds with standard cooling and expansion options. Its 4.7% PassMark single-thread advantage, combined with its 1.6% physics win, means users running legacy single-threaded applications would notice little difference. The higher base clock of 3.80 GHz provides snappy responsiveness in interactive workloads.

For laptop and mobile users, the i5-11400H is the only realistic option given its BGA 1787 socket. For desktop builders with Socket 1200 motherboards, the i3-10320 remains a capable processor for everyday tasks, but the data shows it would be outperformed in nearly every scenario by the i5-11400H if the platform allowed it. The decision ultimately comes down to platform compatibility: the i5-11400H wins on raw performance and efficiency, while the i3-10320 wins on desktop ecosystem fit.