AMD Ryzen 5 7400F vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and Intel Core 5 315 occupy different corners of the processor market, and the benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. The Ryzen 5 7400F is a desktop part with a 65W TDP, while the Core 5 315 is a mobile chip with a 15W TDP. This single difference explains most of the performance gap recorded in the database. The AMD processor wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel chip takes two, both in single-threaded PassMark tests. The score differentials are substantial, with the AMD part often leading by more than 60% in multi-core workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive wins for the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F come in multi-threaded and compute-heavy tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 21,765 against the Intel's 12,981, a 67.7% advantage. The same pattern holds across Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, where the AMD leads by 67.7% in both cases. The Ryzen 5 7400F's 12 threads, double the Intel's 6, give it a structural edge in parallel workloads. The data shows this advantage is consistent: Cinebench R15 multi-core sees the AMD at 2,193 versus 1,308, and R20 multi-core shows 9,141 versus 5,452.

Integer math is the largest single gap. The PassMark integer math test shows the AMD at 74,745 and the Intel at 31,690, a 135.9% lead for the Ryzen 5 7400F. This is more than double the performance, which indicates a massive throughput difference in basic arithmetic operations. Random string sorting also shows a near-total sweep: the AMD scores 35,096 against 17,551, a 100% lead. Data compression follows at 98.4% ahead, with the AMD at 289,999 and the Intel at 146,143. These results point to the AMD part being far better suited to data-heavy tasks.

The Intel Core 5 315 does not win any Cinebench tests. The closest multi-core contest is PassMark floating point math, where the AMD leads by only 7.9%, scoring 45,799 versus 42,441. This is the narrowest margin in the entire dataset. The AMD also wins PassMark physics by 42.7% (1,660 versus 1,163), data encryption by 50.3% (16,712 versus 11,119), and find prime numbers by 70.5% (191 versus 112). The extended instructions test shows a 65.5% lead for the AMD (21,747 versus 13,143).

The Intel chip's two wins are both in PassMark single-thread tests. The Core 5 315 scores 4,021 in both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, against the AMD's 3,689. This is an 8.3% advantage for Intel in each test. This is a notable result because the AMD has a much higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz versus 4.40 GHz, but the Intel's architecture still delivers better raw single-thread throughput in this specific benchmark. The overall PassMark multithread score still goes to the AMD at 25,645 versus 15,272, a 67.9% lead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has an average benchmark score of 32,750, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 18,188. The AMD also sits at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Intel.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 315 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins both PassMark single-thread tests with a score of 4,021 versus the AMD's 3,689, an 8.3% margin in each. It loses all 15 other head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the closest rival scores for each processor?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H at 32,812, which is only 0.2% higher. The Intel Core 5 315's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18,189, which is effectively zero percent different.

Q: How do the thread counts compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has 12 threads from 6 cores. The Intel Core 5 315 also has 6 cores but only 6 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 315 does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD has a dual-channel memory bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel has a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Raphael codename, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It has 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Intel part has no transistor count or die size listed in the database.

Cache configurations differ sharply. The AMD has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD's 32 MB of L3 is more than five times the Intel's 6 MB, which helps explain its lead in data-heavy tests like compression and string sorting.

The AMD supports PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU. The Intel supports PCIe Gen 4 with only 6 lanes. This makes the AMD far more expandable for graphics and storage. The Intel does include integrated graphics, specifically Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the AMD has no integrated graphics at all. The AMD uses AMD Socket AM5, a desktop platform, while the Intel uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket.

Memory support also differs. The AMD supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus. The Intel supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but with a single-channel bus. The AMD has ECC memory support, which the Intel lacks. The AMD also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel is locked. The market segments reflect this: the AMD is listed as Desktop, and the Intel is listed as Mobile.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the same at 6 cores, but the thread count differs: 12 for AMD, 6 for Intel. Base clocks are very different, with the AMD at 3.70 GHz and the Intel at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, at 4.70 GHz for AMD and 4.40 GHz for Intel. The TDP is a major gap: 65W for AMD, 15W for Intel. The AMD is a 5 nm TSMC part, the Intel is a 3 nm Intel foundry part. The AMD has 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, the Intel has 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The AMD has no integrated graphics, the Intel has Intel Xe3 Graphics. The AMD supports ECC, the Intel does not. The AMD has a dual-channel memory bus, the Intel has a single-channel bus. The AMD is unlocked, the Intel is locked. The AMD uses Socket AM5, the Intel uses BGA 1516. The AMD has a launch MSRP of $229, the Intel has a launch MSRP of $340.

The Verdict

The data is one-sided in most respects. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F leads by 67.7% or more in every Cinebench test, both single and multi-core. It leads by more than 50% in data encryption, find prime numbers, extended instructions, and multithreaded PassMark. It leads by 135.9% in integer math and by 100% in random string sorting. The only area where the Intel Core 5 315 shows dominance is PassMark single-thread, where it leads by 8.3%. This means the Intel chip has a narrow edge in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive workloads, but it loses heavily everywhere else.

The average benchmark scores are decisive: 32,750 for the AMD versus 18,188 for the Intel. The AMD's percentile rank of 83 against 72 for the Intel confirms its higher standing among all CPUs. The Intel's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-9700 and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, both with average scores around 18,180, which places it at the level of older mainstream parts. The AMD's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-14600T and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, sit around 32,700 to 32,800, a different performance class entirely.

For a desktop user, the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is the clear choice based on the recorded data. It offers more than double the integer throughput, more than double the data compression performance, and a 67.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its 65W TDP is higher than the Intel's 15W, but it is still a mainstream desktop part. The Intel Core 5 315 is a mobile processor, and its 15W TDP and BGA socket make it suitable for laptops, but the benchmark results show it cannot match the AMD in sustained multi-core work.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F wins in all multi-threaded scenarios. It takes the PassMark multithread test by 67.9% and every Cinebench multi-core test by 67.7%. It also wins all the math and data tests: integer math by 135.9%, floating point math by 7.9%, data compression by 98.4%, data encryption by 50.3%, extended instructions by 65.5%, find prime numbers by 70.5%, physics by 42.7%, and random string sorting by 100%. Any workload that uses more than one thread, which includes modern rendering, compilation, and data processing, favors the AMD part heavily.

The Intel Core 5 315 wins only in PassMark single-thread tests. The 8.3% lead there suggests it has a higher per-core efficiency in simple sequential tasks. This could matter for very light workloads like opening documents or basic web browsing, where only one or two threads are active. The Intel also has an advantage in power consumption, with a 15W TDP versus 65W, and it includes integrated graphics, which the AMD lacks. For a mobile device where battery life and a built-in display output are required, the Intel part has clear practical advantages, even if its raw performance is lower.

The AMD part is also ahead in memory bandwidth, with 83.2 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s, and has double the memory channels. Its larger L3 cache of 32 MB versus 6 MB gives it a substantial buffer for repeated data access. The Intel's single-thread win is real but narrow, and it does not compensate for the losses in every other category. The recorded data shows that the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is the stronger processor for almost all measured tasks, with the Intel Core 5 315 being a better fit only for ultra-low-power mobile use cases.