AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into clearly different roles. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 wins 10 of the 15 head-to-head tests, and those wins are concentrated in heavily threaded and data-intensive workloads. The Intel Core 5 315 takes 5 wins, all in single-thread or specialized integer workloads. The AMD part delivers a 188.9% advantage in PassMark integer math and a 105.8% advantage in data compression, which points to a processor built for sustained multi-core throughput. The Intel part counters with a 6.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and an 8.5% lead in PassMark single-thread, making it the stronger choice for lightly threaded responsiveness.

The Ryzen 7 250 dominates in rendering. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2302 is 76% above the Intel's 1308, while the R23 multi-core gap narrows to 13.1% (14676 versus 12981). The Intel Core 5 315 wins the R23 single-core test with 1832 against 1715, but loses R15 single-core by 46.2% (269 versus 184). That inconsistency suggests the Intel part scales better under certain single-threaded conditions but cannot sustain the same advantage across all test versions.

For encryption and sorting workloads, the AMD part is decisively ahead. Data encryption shows a 58.8% delta (17661 versus 11119), random string sorting shows 104.3% (35861 versus 17551), and extended instructions show 64.4% (21613 versus 13143). The Intel part wins only the prime number search (112 versus 73, a 34.8% delta) and physics simulation (1163 versus 1147, a 1.4% delta). The physics result is nearly a tie, while the prime number result is the Intel part's largest single victory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 wins every multi-core benchmark in the comparison. It leads Cinebench R23 multi-core by 13.1% (14676 versus 12981) and PassMark multi-thread by 64.3% (25089 versus 15272). The R15 multi-core gap is the largest at 76%.

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

A: Yes, it wins 5 of 15 tests. These are Cinebench R23 single-core (1832 versus 1715, a 6.4% lead), PassMark single-thread (4021 versus 3678, an 8.5% lead), PassMark find prime numbers (112 versus 73, a 34.8% lead), PassMark physics (1163 versus 1147, a 1.4% lead), and the duplicate PassMark single-thread test.

Q: How do the overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has an average benchmark score of 38221, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 315 has an average score of 18188, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The AMD part's closest rivals by average score are the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T at 38194 and the Intel Core i5-14490F at 38149.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. That 29.9 GB/s gap contributes to the AMD part's large lead in memory-sensitive workloads like data compression.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multithreading. The AMD part's thread advantage is a major factor in its multi-thread benchmark wins.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 includes a Radeon 780M GPU. The Intel Core 5 315 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The benchmark data does not include graphics tests, so any comparison is limited to the listed specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single delta in the entire comparison belongs to the AMD Ryzen 7 250 in PassMark integer math. Its score of 91565 crushes the Intel Core 5 315's 31690, a 188.9% advantage. This is a workload where the Ryzen's 8 cores and 16 threads can be fully utilized, while the Intel part's 6 cores and 6 threads fall far behind. The data compression test shows a similar pattern: 300708 versus 146143, a 105.8% delta. Random string sorting also exceeds the 100% mark at 104.3% (35861 versus 17551). These three tests demonstrate that the AMD processor's throughput advantage is not marginal but structural.

The Cinebench results tell a more nuanced story. In R15 multi-core, the AMD part leads by 76% (2302 versus 1308). In R23 multi-core, the lead shrinks to 13.1% (14676 versus 12981). The R23 version appears to be more efficient at scaling across the Intel part's limited threads, but the AMD chip still holds the top position. In single-core tests, the results split by version. The AMD part wins R15 single-core by 46.2% (269 versus 184), while the Intel part wins R23 single-core by 6.4% (1832 versus 1715). The R15 single-core result is unusual given the Intel part's higher PassMark single-thread score, suggesting the R15 test is sensitive to clock behavior under short bursts.

PassMark single-thread and its duplicate test both show the Intel part ahead by 8.5% (4021 versus 3678). This is the Intel processor's clearest single-thread victory and aligns with its higher boost clock behavior under light load. The prime number test gives Intel its biggest percentage win at 34.8% (112 versus 73), a workload that rewards efficient integer division and branch prediction rather than raw core count. The physics test is nearly even: 1163 versus 1147, a 1.4% delta in favor of Intel. The encryption test favors AMD by 58.8% (17661 versus 11119), and extended instructions favor AMD by 64.4% (21613 versus 13143). Floating point math favors AMD by 25.6% (53285 versus 42441).

The average benchmark score for the AMD part is 38221, which places it among rivals like the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T at 38194 and the Intel Core i5-13600HX at 38261. The Intel Core 5 315's average of 18188 sits alongside the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18189 and the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18180. The delta between the two processors in average score is substantial, roughly 110% in favor of AMD. The percentile ranking confirms this: 86th versus 72nd.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ sharply. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Clock speeds also diverge: the AMD part has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the Intel part has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The AMD part's higher base clock reflects its higher thermal envelope of 28 W, compared to the Intel part's 15 W.

Memory configuration is another major split. The AMD processor supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel processor supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. The AMD part offers 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the Intel part offers 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. Both processors lack ECC memory support, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The sockets are incompatible. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516. The release dates differ by more than a year: the AMD part launched on 2025-01-05, and the Intel part launched on 2026-04-15. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $340. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Cache hierarchies are organized differently. The AMD part provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part provides 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's larger L3 cache and per-core L2 allocation support its multi-threaded throughput. The Intel part's smaller total cache aligns with its lower core count and single-channel memory design.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is built on TSMC's 4 nm process with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. It uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename. The Intel Core 5 315 is built on Intel's 3 nm process under the Wildcat Lake codename, with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database. The process node advantage goes to Intel at 3 nm versus 4 nm, but the benchmark data shows the AMD part outperforming in most workloads despite the older node.

The cache architecture reflects different design philosophies. AMD uses a per-core L1 and L2 structure with a shared 16 MB L3 pool, which suits its 8-core configuration. Intel uses a combined 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 with only 6 MB of shared L3, which is a leaner design for a 6-core chip. The AMD part's larger L3 cache likely contributes to its data compression and encryption wins, where repeated data access benefits from larger on-chip storage.

The integrated graphics differ in architecture. AMD pairs its Zen 4 cores with Radeon 780M graphics, while Intel pairs its Wildcat Lake cores with Xe3 Graphics featuring 2 Xe cores. No graphics benchmarks are in the database, so the comparison stops at the specification level. The memory bandwidth difference of 89.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s also affects any integrated graphics workload, since both processors share system memory for GPU operations.

The power envelope shapes the performance profile. The AMD part's 28 W TDP allows higher sustained clocks across 8 cores, which explains its dominance in multi-threaded tests. The Intel part's 15 W TDP constrains its multi-core performance but allows competitive single-thread results, as seen in its PassMark single-thread win. The base clock difference of 3.30 GHz versus 1.50 GHz is the most direct expression of this power allocation. The Intel part compensates with a 4.40 GHz boost clock, but the gap in base clock means it cannot maintain high frequency under sustained load.

The memory controller also differs in scope. The AMD part's dual-channel design with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth doubles the Intel part's 59.7 GB/s single-channel throughput. This affects not just CPU workloads but any data movement between cores, cache, and system memory. The PCIe lane difference of 20 versus 6 further separates the two platforms, with the AMD part offering more expansion headroom for discrete devices. The Intel part's single-channel memory and limited PCIe lanes position it as a lower-power, more constrained platform.