AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark record between the AMD Ryzen 7 260 and the Intel Core 5 315 is heavily lopsided, with the AMD part winning 11 of the 15 recorded comparisons. The magnitude of those wins, however, varies dramatically by workload type, and the Intel part does claim four victories in specific single-threaded and integer tasks.

The largest margin belongs to the AMD processor in PassMark integer math, where it scores 96,737 against Intel's 31,690, a 205.3% advantage. This is the kind of result that indicates a fundamental throughput difference in arithmetic-heavy workloads. Data compression shows a similar story: AMD's 351,517 score versus Intel's 146,143 represents a 140.5% lead. Random string sorting also heavily favors AMD at 42,383 versus 17,551, a 141.5% gap. These three results cluster around the same conclusion: the AMD chip has a massive parallel throughput advantage in memory-access-heavy and integer-processing tasks.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the second-largest percentage gap, with AMD at 2,747.5 points and Intel at 1,308, a 110.1% difference. The R23 multi-core test narrows that margin considerably but still gives AMD the win, 17,211.5 versus 12,981, a 32.6% lead. Extended instructions follow a similar pattern, with AMD at 26,544 versus Intel's 13,143, a 102% gap. Data encryption shows an 82.3% AMD advantage (20,267 versus 11,119), and PassMark multithread gives AMD an 83.9% lead (28,078 versus 15,272).

Floating point math is closer but still clearly AMD's, at 59,462 versus 42,441, a 40.1% lead. Physics simulation is nearly a tie, with AMD at 1,218 and Intel at 1,163, only a 4.7% difference. Cinebench R15 single-core gives AMD a 50.3% win (276.5 versus 184), but the R23 single-core test flips to Intel by a small margin: 1,832 versus 1,770.5, a 3.4% Intel advantage.

The Intel part's other wins come in PassMark single-thread (4,021 versus 3,736, a 7.1% lead) and find prime numbers (112 versus 77, a 31.2% lead). The prime number result is interesting because it is the only test where Intel beats AMD by a double-digit percentage, and it suggests Intel's per-core integer execution efficiency is genuinely strong even if its multi-core scaling is not. The data as a whole indicates that the AMD Ryzen 7 260 dominates aggregate throughput while the Intel Core 5 315 shows a narrow but consistent edge in lightly-threaded integer work.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has an average benchmark score of 43,717, which places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 315 averages 18,188, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The AMD part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 at 43,704 (0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 7 170 at 43,689 (0.1% delta). The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18,189 (0% delta) and the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18,180 (0% delta).

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part therefore has two more cores and ten more threads, which helps explain its large multi-threaded benchmark margins.

Q: What are the clock speeds of the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core 5 315 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The AMD part has a higher base clock by 2.30 GHz and a higher boost clock by 0.70 GHz.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The results are split. The Intel Core 5 315 wins Cinebench R23 single-core (1,832 versus 1,770.5, a 3.4% lead) and PassMark single-thread (4,021 versus 3,736, a 7.1% lead). The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins Cinebench R15 single-core (276.5 versus 184, a 50.3% lead). The PassMark single-thread result is the more modern measurement, so Intel holds the edge in that specific test.

Q: What memory configurations do the two support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has a TDP of 45 watts. The Intel Core 5 315 has a TDP of 15 watts. The Intel part's lower power envelope is consistent with its lower clock speeds and reduced core count.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different fabrication and design lineages. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with a codename of Hawk Point and a generation label of Ryzen 7 (Zen 4 (Hawk Point)). It integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, and is built on Intel's own 3 nm process. The Intel database entry does not list a transistor count or die size, so those figures cannot be compared directly.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD part provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part lists 192 KB of total L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD processor's per-core L2 allocation is larger, and its shared L3 pool is 10 MB larger than Intel's. This cache hierarchy helps explain why the AMD part dominates data compression and random string sorting, workloads that benefit from large, fast on-die storage.

The integrated graphics also differ. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses the Radeon 780M, while the Intel Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The database does not provide direct graphics benchmark comparisons, so any graphics performance claims would be speculative.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516. Both are mobile-market processors, and both are in active production. The AMD part was released on 2025-01-05, while the Intel part's release date is 2026-04-15. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The core count is the most obvious difference: 8 cores and 16 threads for AMD versus 6 cores and 6 threads for Intel. The AMD part has no hyper-threading-style advantage because it simply has more physical cores, while Intel's 6 cores do not add any extra threads.

Clock speeds differ significantly. AMD's base clock of 3.80 GHz is more than double Intel's 1.50 GHz base. The boost clocks are closer but still favor AMD, 5.10 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. TDP is heavily skewed toward Intel's efficiency: 15 watts versus 45 watts.

Memory support differs in bus width and bandwidth. AMD uses dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth; Intel uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5, but Intel adds LPDDR5X support. PCIe lanes also differ: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

Process node and foundry differ: TSMC 4 nm for AMD, Intel 3 nm for Intel. The AMD part has a listed transistor count of 25,000 million and die size of 178 mm²; the Intel part has neither listed.

The Intel Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear split by workload type. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 is the stronger processor for multi-threaded and parallel workloads, holding an 11-4 win record in head-to-head tests. Its average benchmark score of 43,717 versus 18,188 for Intel means the AMD part is roughly 2.4 times the average score of its rival, and its 88th percentile placement versus the Intel part's 72nd percentile confirms a higher overall standing in the database.

The Intel Core 5 315 is the more power-efficient option, with a 15 watt TDP versus 45 watts, and it wins the modern single-thread tests (Cinebench R23 single-core and PassMark single-thread). It also wins the find prime numbers test, which suggests its per-core integer execution is capable. However, its 6-core, 6-thread configuration with a 1.50 GHz base clock limits its aggregate throughput severely.

The data implies that the AMD Ryzen 7 260 is the choice for rendering, compilation, data processing, and any workload that can use 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 is the choice for battery-sensitive mobile designs where single-threaded responsiveness matters more than raw multi-core output, and where its single-channel memory and 6 PCIe lanes are sufficient.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins in every multi-core benchmark in the record, including Cinebench R15 multi-core (110.1% lead), Cinebench R23 multi-core (32.6% lead), PassMark multithread (83.9% lead), and PassMark physics (4.7% lead). It also wins all memory-bandwidth-sensitive tests: data compression (140.5%), random string sorting (141.5%), and data encryption (82.3%). Extended instructions (102%) and floating point math (40.1%) also go to AMD. Integer math is the AMD part's largest win at 205.3%. The AMD part also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 50.3%.

The Intel Core 5 315 wins four tests, all in single-threaded or low-thread integer territory. PassMark single-thread gives Intel a 7.1% lead (4,021 versus 3,736). Cinebench R23 single-core gives Intel a 3.4% lead (1,832 versus 1,770.5). Find prime numbers gives Intel its largest win at 31.2% (112 versus 77). These wins are narrow except for prime numbers, but they are consistent: in lightly-threaded integer execution, Intel's per-core efficiency holds up. The Intel part's lower TDP of 15 watts also makes it the clearly more efficient choice for sustained low-power operation, though the database does not include battery-life measurements.

The overall picture is that AMD owns throughput and memory-heavy workloads, while Intel owns a narrow slice of single-thread integer performance and power efficiency.