In Deathloop, the Core i5-3320M is slightly slower than the Core Ultra 9 275HX. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i5-3320M
- Consumes up to 36% less energy – 35 vs 55 Watts
- Consumes up to 36% less energy
Core Ultra 9 275HX
- Up to 10% faster in Deathloop – 242 vs 221 FPS
- Up to 10% faster in Deathloop
- Is 12 years and 7 months newer – Jan 13, 2025 vs Jun 01, 2012
- Is 12 years and 7 months newer
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i5-3320M vs Core Ultra 9 275HX: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-3320M
Jun 1st, 2012
Average FPS
221 FPS
91%
Min 1% FPS
166 FPS
92%
Price, $
$65.05
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.29/FPS
100%
Core Ultra 9 275HX
Jan 13th, 2025
Average FPS
242 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
181 FPS
100%
Price, $
...
Value, $/FPS
...
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-3320M vs Core Ultra 9 275HX in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-3320M vs Core Ultra 9 275HX in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-3320M
Jun 1st, 2012
Cores
2-core
8%
L3 Cache
3 MB
8%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
96%
Turbo Frequency
3.3 GHz
61%
Max. unknown RAM Speed
MHz
Core Ultra 9 275HX
Jan 13th, 2025
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
5.4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i5-3320M Jun 1st, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 9 275HX Jan 13th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 1st, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 13th, 2025 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Laptop |
| Intel BGA 1023 | Socket | Intel BGA 2114 |
35W | Power Consumption | 55W |
| Other Features | ||
| unknown | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| Intel HD 4000 | Integrated GPU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
