AMD Ryzen 7 8700F vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive overall picture: the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 315 manages three victories. The margin of dominance, however, varies sharply by workload type, and the Intel part claims some of the narrowest wins in the entire dataset.

Starting with multi-threaded rendering, the AMD processor is in a different class. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 8700F scores 26,646 against the Core 5 315's 12,981, a 105.3% advantage. That pattern repeats across the entire Cinebench suite: R20 multi-core shows 11,191 versus 5,452 (105.3% ahead), and R15 multi-core shows 2,685 versus 1,308 (105.3% ahead). The consistency of that 105.3% delta across all three Cinebench multi-core tests indicates the gap is structural, not workload-specific.

Single-core Cinebench results tell the same story. The 8700F posts 3,761 in R23 single-core versus 1,832 for the Core 5 315, again a 105.3% delta. R20 single-core lands at 1,579 versus 769, and R15 single-core at 378 versus 184. In every Cinebench test, the AMD chip roughly doubles the Intel chip's output.

PassMark's integer math test delivers the largest single delta in the entire comparison. The 8700F scores 100,371, while the Core 5 315 manages just 31,690. That is a 216.7% advantage for AMD, the widest margin recorded in any head-to-head metric. Data compression also heavily favors AMD: 378,160 versus 146,143, a 158.8% gap. Random string sorting shows the same 158.8% delta, with scores of 45,425 and 17,551 respectively. Extended instruction performance puts AMD ahead by 116.6%, at 28,474 versus 13,143.

The PassMark multithread test, which aggregates diverse workloads, shows the AMD processor at 30,893 versus 15,272, a 102.3% lead. Floating point math is somewhat closer in relative terms: 62,629 versus 42,441, a 47.6% advantage for AMD. Data encryption sees a 98.9% delta, with 22,117 against 11,119. Physics simulation favors AMD by 33.5%, at 1,553 versus 1,163.

The Intel Core 5 315 does secure two wins in the PassMark suite. In single-threaded performance, it posts 4,021 against AMD's 3,872, a 3.7% edge. That result appears twice in the dataset (passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread), confirming the Intel part's strength in lightly threaded scalar work. The other Intel victory comes in prime number generation, where it scores 112 versus AMD's 98, a 12.5% margin in its favor.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy. The 8700F averages 30,746 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 82nd percentile among all CPUs tracked in the database. The Core 5 315 averages 18,188, landing in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rival to the AMD part is the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS at 30,879 (0.4% higher), followed by the Intel Core i5-13600H at 30,548 (0.6% lower). For the Intel part, the closest neighbors include the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18,189 (exactly 0% delta) and the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18,180 (0% delta). These proximity figures show that the 8700F competes with upper-midrange mobile and desktop processors, while the Core 5 315 sits alongside older desktop parts from several generations back.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F dominates every multi-threaded test in the dataset. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 26,646 versus 12,981 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 105.3% advantage. PassMark multithread shows 30,893 versus 15,272, a 102.3% lead.

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

A: Yes, it wins three head-to-head comparisons. It leads in PassMark single-thread performance (4,021 versus 3,872, a 3.7% margin) and in PassMark prime number finding (112 versus 98, a 12.5% margin). The single-thread result appears twice in the dataset.

Q: How do the processors compare in single-core Cinebench tests?

A: The AMD part leads all three Cinebench single-core tests by 105.3% or 105.4%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3,761 versus 1,832, R20 shows 1,579 versus 769, and R15 shows 378 versus 184.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The widest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F scores 100,371 against 31,690 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 216.7% advantage. Data compression and random string sorting both show 158.8% gaps.

Q: How does the Intel part perform in floating point math?

A: It trails by 47.6% in PassMark floating point math, scoring 42,441 versus AMD's 62,629. This is the narrowest multi-threaded gap in the dataset, aside from physics simulation where Intel trails by 33.5%.

Q: Where does each processor rank among all CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F sits in the 82nd percentile with an average benchmark score of 30,746. The Intel Core 5 315 sits in the 72nd percentile with an average score of 18,188.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split in use cases. For any workload that scales across cores, the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is the unequivocal choice. It doubles Intel's Cinebench multi-core scores, more than triples integer math throughput, and leads by at least 33.5% in every multi-threaded PassMark subtest. The 8700F's 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with its 5.00 GHz boost clock, deliver sustained performance that the 6-core, 6-thread Intel part cannot match. Its 82nd percentile ranking versus the Intel part's 72nd percentile confirms that the database places it in a higher overall performance tier.

The Intel Core 5 315, by contrast, claims only the single-thread PassMark victory (4,021 versus 3,872) and the prime number generation test. Its 3 nm process node and higher single-thread PassMark score suggest efficiency in scalar, latency-sensitive tasks, but the 3.7% margin is narrow. In every Cinebench test, AMD wins by over 100%. The Intel part's average benchmark score of 18,188 places it alongside the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700, both of which match its score within 0.1%, indicating it performs at the level of older desktop processors rather than current high-end parts.

For desktop users building a system around Socket AM5, the 8700F offers an unlocked multiplier, 16 MB of shared L3 cache, and 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part uses a BGA 1516 socket, targets the mobile segment, and includes integrated Xe3 graphics with 2 Xe cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely. The 8700F also supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s. These memory and platform differences compound the benchmark gap.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning the Intel part offers no simultaneous multithreading. Base clocks differ substantially: AMD starts at 4.10 GHz, Intel at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks also favor AMD, at 5.00 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. Thermal design power reflects the different market positioning: the 8700F is rated at 65 W, the Core 5 315 at 15 W.

Cache hierarchies vary in structure. The AMD part uses 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part reports 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. Memory support differs as well: AMD supports DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X but in a single-channel configuration with 59.7 GB/s. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe lane counts diverge significantly. The AMD processor provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part provides only 6 Gen 4 lanes. The AMD chip has no integrated graphics; the Intel chip includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe execution units. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel part does not. The AMD processor uses an AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516. Release dates also differ, with AMD launching on March 31, 2024, and Intel on April 15, 2026.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is built on TSMC's 4 nm process node using the Zen 4 architecture, with the codename Phoenix. It belongs to the 8000 series and the Ryzen 7 generation. The die contains 25,000 million transistors across a 178 mm² die size. This is a desktop-focused design, despite sharing the Phoenix codename with AMD's mobile APUs, and it omits integrated graphics entirely.

The Intel Core 5 315 uses Intel's 3 nm process node, built in-house, with the codename Wildcat Lake. It belongs to the Core 5 generation. The database records no transistor count or die size for this part. It targets the mobile market segment, as indicated by its BGA 1516 socket and 15 W TDP, and includes integrated Xe3 graphics with 2 Xe cores. The architecture field is null in the database, though the Wildcat Lake codename and 3 nm node indicate a newer fabrication generation than AMD's 4 nm part.

The architectural choices explain the benchmark outcomes. AMD's Zen 4 design prioritizes high core counts, high clocks, and wide execution resources, which pays off in Cinebench and PassMark multi-threaded tests. Intel's Wildcat Lake design appears optimized for low power consumption and single-thread efficiency, which shows in its PassMark single-thread score of 4,021, the only PassMark test where it beats AMD. The lack of SMT on the Intel part halves its thread count relative to physical cores, a structural disadvantage in any parallel workload. The single-channel memory bus further limits memory bandwidth to 59.7 GB/s, versus AMD's 83.2 GB/s over a dual-channel interface.

The process node difference (3 nm versus 4 nm) does not translate into a performance advantage for Intel in the recorded data. Despite the smaller node, the Intel part trails in 14 of 17 tests. The 3 nm process likely contributes to the Intel part's lower 15 W TDP, but that efficiency comes at the cost of a 1.50 GHz base clock, which is far below AMD's 4.10 GHz. The 8700F also holds a boost clock advantage of 5.00 GHz versus 4.40 GHz, and with an unlocked multiplier, it can potentially exceed that figure, though the database records only the stock boost value.

The cache architecture also reflects different design philosophies. AMD distributes 1 MB of L2 per core, which for an 8-core chip totals 8 MB of L2, plus 16 MB of shared L3. Intel reports 2.5 MB of total L2 and 6 MB of shared L3. For a 6-core chip, that works out to roughly 416 KB of L2 per core, which is less than half of AMD's per-core allocation. The smaller caches and single-channel memory likely contribute to the Intel part's lower scores in data compression and integer math, where memory latency and bandwidth play significant roles.

The 8700F's 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die indicate a dense, feature-rich implementation. The Core 5 315's transistor count is not recorded, so a direct comparison of integration density is not possible from the database. What the recorded data does show is that the AMD part delivers more than double the multi-threaded throughput in Cinebench tests, a 216.7% lead in integer math, and a 102.3% lead in PassMark multithread, while also offering a higher single-core Cinebench score. The Intel part's three wins are narrow, with its best margin at 12.5% in prime number generation. The overall average benchmark scores, 30,746 versus 18,188, place the AMD part ten percentile points higher, confirming that the 8700F is the stronger processor by a substantial margin.