Intel Core i5-11300H vs Intel Core i5-11320H Comparison

The Intel Core i5-11320H and the Intel Core i5-11300H are two closely related mobile processors from Intel’s Core 11th Gen series. Both share the same Tiger Lake-H codename, 4 cores, 8 threads, and a 28 W TDP, yet the benchmark data reveals distinct performance profiles. The 11320H wins all eight head-to-head comparisons in the database, but the margins vary dramatically, from a negligible 0.2% in Geekbench single-core to a striking 14.5% in Geekbench multi-core. This page breaks down those results, explains the architectural and specification differences, and identifies which processor suits which workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i5-11320H, but the size of each victory tells a nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 11320H scores 923 against 919 for the 11300H, a delta of 0.4%. Single-core in the same test shows a slightly larger gap: 130 versus 129, a 0.8% advantage. These are tiny margins, within the range of run-to-run variation, but they consistently favor the 11320H.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The 11320H records 3846 in multi-core versus 3833 for the 11300H, a 0.3% lead. In single-core, the scores are 543 and 540, respectively, a 0.6% edge. Cinebench R23 continues the trend: the 11320H posts 9158 in multi-core against 9127, a 0.3% delta, and 1293 in single-core versus 1288, a 0.4% lead. In every Cinebench iteration, the 11320H is ahead, but never by more than 0.8%. The data suggests these two chips are nearly identical under sustained rendering workloads, with the 11320H holding a slight, consistent edge.

The Geekbench results break the pattern. In multi-core, the 11320H scores 5620 while the 11300H manages 4907. That is a 14.5% difference, the largest in the entire comparison. This is not a marginal gap; it is a substantial leap that indicates the 11320H handles parallel workloads with noticeably higher efficiency in this benchmark. Single-core Geekbench, however, returns to the familiar pattern: 1592 versus 1589, a 0.2% lead for the 11320H.

What does this divergence imply? The Cinebench tests, which typically stress sustained multi-threaded rendering, show nearly identical results. The Geekbench multi-core test, which mixes integer, floating-point, and memory patterns, exposes a much larger difference. This suggests the 11320H is not just clocked higher; it may be sustaining boost behavior better under certain mixed workloads. The 11320H has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 4.40 GHz for the 11300H, and a base clock of 2.50 GHz versus 2.60 GHz. The higher boost clock likely explains the small single-core wins, but the 14.5% multi-core Geekbench gap points to something more than a 0.10 GHz difference. The database records show the 11320H’s average benchmark score at 2888, while the 11300H sits at 2792, a gap of 96 points.

Looking at the nearest rivals from the database places these scores in context. The 11320H has an average score of 2888, placing it just 0.6% behind the Intel Xeon E-2414 (2905) and 0.7% behind both the Intel Core i5-1335UE (2907) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 (2909). It is 0.8% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5475U (2865). The 11300H, with an average of 2792, sits 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 (2789) and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i7-5930K (2775) and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G (2774), while trailing the Intel Core i5-8600K (2807) by 0.5%. Both chips land in the 51st percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they sit near the middle of the overall performance distribution.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Intel Core i5-11320H is the clear pick for anyone who prioritizes multi-core performance in mixed workloads. Its 14.5% lead in Geekbench multi-core is the defining statistic of this comparison. The 11300H is not a bad processor, but it loses every benchmark in the head-to-head set, and its average score of 2792 is 96 points lower than the 11320H’s 2888.

For single-threaded tasks, the choice is less consequential. The differences in Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and Geekbench single-core all sit between 0.2% and 0.8%, which is effectively a tie for most real-world applications. The 11320H wins all four single-core tests, but the margins are so small that a user would not notice a difference in day-to-day use.

For multi-threaded workloads, the data favors the 11320H without ambiguity. The Cinebench multi-core tests show only a 0.3% to 0.4% gap, but the Geekbench multi-core result shows a 14.5% gap. If the workload resembles the Geekbench mix, the 11320H is substantially faster. If it resembles Cinebench, the two are nearly identical. The safest conclusion is that the 11320H offers better overall performance, especially in tasks that exercise a variety of parallel operations. The 11300H remains a viable choice only if the system builder cannot source the 11320H, as both share the same socket, TDP, and memory support.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s Tiger Lake architecture, specifically the Tiger Lake-H codename, and both use a 10 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry. The die size is identical at 146.1 mm², and both have the same core and thread configuration: 4 cores and 8 threads. The architecture is fundamentally the same, so the performance differences in the benchmarks cannot be attributed to a different microarchitecture or a different manufacturing process.

The cache hierarchy is also identical. Each core has 80 KB of L1 cache and 1.25 MB of L2 cache, while the shared L3 cache totals 8 MB. There is no additional v-cache, and total L3 is listed as null in the database, meaning the 8 MB shared figure is the complete L3 allocation. Memory support is the same: DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. Neither processor supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity matches as well, with Gen 4 and 20 lanes from the CPU.

The one architectural difference lies in the integrated graphics. The 11320H features Iris XE 96EU, while the 11300H features Iris XE 80EU. The 96EU configuration has more execution units, which should provide higher graphics throughput, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks. This difference does not affect the CPU benchmark scores listed here, but it is a meaningful architectural distinction for users who rely on the integrated GPU. The CPU cores themselves, however, share the same design, process, and cache structure.

Specification Differences

The specification table for these two processors shows only a few fields where they differ. The base clock is one: the 11300H runs at 2.60 GHz, while the 11320H runs lower at 2.50 GHz. The boost clock flips the order: the 11320H boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the 11300H boosts to 4.40 GHz. This 0.10 GHz boost advantage for the 11320H is the most likely source of its small single-core wins.

The integrated graphics differ, as noted above: Iris XE 96EU for the 11320H versus Iris XE 80EU for the 11300H. The launch MSRP is identical for both, at $309, so there is no price-based reason to choose one over the other. The release dates differ: the 11300H was released on 2021-01-10, while the 11320H came later on 2021-06-20. Both have the same socket (Intel BGA 1449), the same 28 W TDP, and the same part number family, with the 11320H carrying the SRKSK part number and the 11300H carrying SRKH6.

Other specifications match exactly: both use DDR4 memory, both are dual-channel, both have the same 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, both lack ECC support, both use PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, both are mobile segment parts, both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The die size, process node, foundry, cache sizes, and core/thread counts are also identical. In short, the only meaningful specification differences are the clocks and the integrated GPU execution units.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-11320H boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-11300H boosts to 4.40 GHz. The 11320H also has a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz versus 2.60 GHz for the 11300H.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench multi-core?

A: The 11320H scores 5620 in Geekbench multi-core, while the 11300H scores 4907. That is a 14.5% difference in favor of the 11320H.

Q: Do both processors have the same integrated graphics?

A: No. The 11320H has Iris XE 96EU, while the 11300H has Iris XE 80EU. The 96EU configuration has more execution units.

Q: Are the cache sizes identical?

A: Yes. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The 11320H has an average benchmark score of 2888, while the 11300H has an average of 2792. The 11320H is also in the 51st percentile of all CPUs, and the 11300H is also in the 51st percentile.

Q: Did the 11300H win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The database records 8 wins for the 11320H and 0 wins for the 11300H across all head-to-head tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-11320H wins every benchmark in the head-to-head set, but the magnitude of those wins varies. Its largest advantage is in Geekbench multi-core, where it leads by 14.5%. This indicates a clear win for workloads that resemble Geekbench’s mixed parallel operations, such as complex data processing, encoding tasks that combine multiple instruction types, or virtualized environments with varied thread demands. The 11320H also wins all four Cinebench multi-core tests, but by only 0.3% to 0.4%, so for pure rendering workloads like Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, the two processors are effectively tied. The 11320H’s higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz gives it a small edge in single-threaded tests, with wins ranging from 0.2% to 0.8%, but this is unlikely to translate into perceptible gains in everyday applications.

The Intel Core i5-11300H, while losing all head-to-head tests, is not without its own context. Its base clock of 2.60 GHz is higher than the 11320H’s 2.50 GHz, which could imply better sustained performance at lower power states, though the database does not include power or thermal measurements. In Cinebench multi-core tests, the 11300H trails by margins of 0.3% to 0.4%, meaning that for sustained all-core rendering, the two chips are nearly interchangeable. The 11300H’s nearest rival comparisons show it sitting close to the Intel Core i7-5930K and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G, both within 0.6%, and it edges out the Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 by 0.1%. The 11320H, by contrast, sits close to the Intel Xeon E-2414 and Intel Core i5-1335UE, trailing both by less than 0.7%.

For a user choosing between these two, the data points to the 11320H as the better all-around part, especially for multi-threaded mixed workloads. The 11300H remains a serviceable processor for rendering tasks where the Cinebench scores are nearly identical, and its earlier release date means it may appear in systems that were built before the 11320H launched. But the 14.5% Geekbench multi-core gap is too large to ignore, and the 11320H’s additional graphics execution units (96EU versus 80EU) further tip the balance for users who rely on the integrated GPU. The benchmarks are clear: the 11320H is the stronger processor, and the 11300H is the fallback option.