CPU Comparison

The benchmark data presents a stark and unambiguous picture: the AMD EPYC 9274F outscores the Intel Core 5 315 in every single head-to-head Cinebench test, often by a factor of nearly five. Despite this, their average benchmark scores are virtually identical (18189 vs 18188), placing both at the 72nd percentile. This paradox is explained by the EPYC's massive multi-core advantage being offset by the inclusion of the Intel part's PassMark scores, which are absent from the EPYC's data set. The verdict is clear: these processors serve entirely different markets, and the data reflects that chasm.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are dominated by the AMD EPYC 9274F. In the multi-core tests, the EPYC's lead is immense and consistent. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 62,884 against the Intel Core 5 315's 12,981, a delta of 384.4%. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (26,411 vs 5,452, a 384.4% delta) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (6,338 vs 1,308, a 384.6% delta). The AMD processor is not just faster; it is in a different performance tier entirely, delivering roughly 4.8 times the throughput in these heavily threaded workloads.

The single-core results tell a similar story, albeit with a slightly different nuance. The EPYC 9274F wins Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 8,877 compared to the Intel's 1,832, a 384.6% delta. It also wins R20 single-core (3,728 vs 769, a 384.8% delta) and R15 single-core (894 vs 184, a 385.9% delta). The deltas are remarkably uniform, hovering around 384-386% across all tests. This indicates that the EPYC's architectural advantage is not just about core count; its per-core performance is also drastically superior in this benchmark suite, which is unexpected given the Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus the EPYC's 4.30 GHz.

The data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 9274F with 6 wins out of 6 head-to-head tests. For the Intel Core 5 315, the benchmark results are not competitive. While the Intel part has additional PassMark scores (like multi-thread at 15,272 and single-thread at 4,021), these are not part of the head-to-head comparison. The conclusion from this section is that for any Cinebench workload, the EPYC 9274F is the unequivocal choice, with leads that are not incremental but generational.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark wins, the AMD EPYC 9274F wins everywhere in the Cinebench suite. Its victory spans both multi-core and single-core tests, indicating a superior architecture for rendering and general CPU computation. The 24-core, 48-thread configuration with a 4.05 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost clock provides a level of parallel and single-threaded performance that the 6-core, 6-thread Intel part cannot approach. The data shows the EPYC is for workloads that demand maximum CPU throughput, such as server-side rendering, scientific computing, and heavy virtualization.

The Intel Core 5 315, while losing all Cinebench tests, does have a distinct profile. Its PassMark scores, which are not compared head-to-head, show a different strength: data compression at 146,143 and data encryption at 11,119. These are not present for the AMD part, so a direct comparison is impossible. However, the Intel part's mobile market segment, 15W TDP, and integrated graphics suggest its wins are in efficiency and portability, not raw compute. It wins in the use case of a low-power mobile device where battery life and heat are more critical than Cinebench scores. The data does not show it winning any benchmark, but its existence implies a purpose for light, mobile workloads where the EPYC's 320W TDP is a non-starter.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors is vast. The AMD EPYC 9274F is built on TSMC's 5 nm process and uses the Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Genoa). It features 24 cores and 48 threads, with a substantial 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 315, in contrast, uses Intel's 3 nm process with the Wildcat Lake architecture. It has only 6 cores and 6 threads, with a much smaller 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC also has a per-core L1 cache of 64 KB and 1 MB per-core L2, while the Intel part lists a total L1 of 192 KB and 2.5 MB of L2.

Memory support is another major divider. The EPYC 9274F supports DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus, providing a massive memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, yielding only 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not. PCIe lanes differ dramatically: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the Intel part offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes. The Intel part includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe), while the AMD part has none. These differences define their roles: one is a server/workstation behemoth, the other a mobile processor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has an average benchmark score of 18,189, which is just one point higher than the Intel Core 5 315's score of 18,188, resulting in a delta of 0%.

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 9274F in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 9274F scores 62,884 compared to the Intel Core 5 315's 12,981, which represents a 384.4% lead for the AMD processor.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has a twelve-channel memory bus providing 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel Core 5 315 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 315 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 5 315 includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe), while the AMD EPYC 9274F does not list any integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 is built on a 3 nm process, whereas the AMD EPYC 9274F is built on a 5 nm process.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 24 (AMD) vs 6 (Intel)
• Threads: 48 (AMD) vs 6 (Intel)
• Base Clock: 4.05 GHz (AMD) vs 1.50 GHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 4.30 GHz (AMD) vs 4.40 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 320 W (AMD) vs 15 W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket SP5 (AMD) vs Intel BGA 1516 (Intel)
• Process Node: 5 nm (AMD) vs 3 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC (AMD) vs Intel (Intel)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (AMD) vs 192 KB total (Intel)
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core (AMD) vs 2.5 MB total (Intel)
• L3 Cache: 256 MB shared (AMD) vs 6 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory Bus: Twelve-channel (AMD) vs Single-channel (Intel)
• Memory Bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s (AMD) vs 59.7 GB/s (Intel)
• ECC Memory: True (AMD) vs False (Intel)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 128 Lanes (AMD) vs Gen 4, 6 Lanes (Intel)
• Integrated Graphics: None (AMD) vs Intel Xe3 Graphics (Intel)
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation (AMD) vs Mobile (Intel)
• Release Date: 2022-11-09 (AMD) vs 2026-04-15 (Intel)
• Launch MSRP: $3060 (AMD) vs $340 (Intel)

The Verdict

The data dictates a simple choice based on use case. For any server, workstation, or heavy compute environment, the AMD EPYC 9274F is the only logical option. Its Cinebench scores are 384% higher across the board, and its 24 cores, 48 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, and 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth provide a level of performance the Intel part cannot match. The launch MSRP of $3060 reflects this enterprise positioning. The EPYC is for users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput and are willing to support a 320W TDP.

For a mobile device, the Intel Core 5 315 is the appropriate choice, but not because it wins any benchmarks. Its 15W TDP, integrated graphics, and BGA socket are designed for laptops and low-power systems. Its launch MSRP of $340 and mobile market segment confirm this. The data shows it is not a competitor to the EPYC in raw performance; it is a competitor in a different market tier. If a user needs a portable machine for light tasks and battery life, the Intel part is the answer. If a user needs compute density and performance, the AMD part is the answer. The data does not support any other conclusion.