AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents an unusual contest: a 16-core, 32-thread Zen 4 flagship against a 6-core, 6-thread Wildcat Lake part. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX wins 10 of the 13 shared benchmarks, and the margins are often extreme. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD part scores 29,400 against Intel’s 12,981, a 126.5% advantage. That is not a small gap; it is the difference between a desktop-class rendering workload and a low-power mobile chip.

The most lopsided result appears in PassMark integer math, where the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX delivers 202,883 versus 31,690 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 540.2% delta. Data compression shows a 374.7% lead (693,741 against 146,143), and random string sorting is 365.9% ahead (81,775 versus 17,551). These are not close contests. The AMD part’s 32 threads simply overwhelm the Intel part’s 6 threads in any workload that scales with core count.

Encryption and extended instructions follow the same pattern. PassMark data encryption shows 41,974 for AMD versus 11,119 for Intel, a 277.5% difference. Extended instructions score 51,029 against 13,143, a 288.3% lead. Floating-point math is 186% ahead (121,383 versus 42,441), and PassMark multi-thread is 248.4% ahead (53,204 versus 15,272). Prime number finding, a test that often rewards fast integer execution, still goes to AMD by 143.8% (273 versus 112). Physics simulation also favors AMD, 2,297 versus 1,163, a 97.5% margin.

The Intel Core 5 315 wins only the two single-thread tests and the Cinebench R23 single-core test. In PassMark single-thread, Intel scores 4,021 against AMD’s 3,942, a 2% edge. The Cinebench R23 single-core result is 1,832 for Intel versus 1,807 for AMD, a 1.4% lead. These are narrow victories. The Intel part’s 3 nm process and higher single-core efficiency show up here, but the margin is small enough that real-world single-threaded applications would be hard-pressed to show a meaningful difference.

It is worth interpreting what this means for the overall benchmark averages. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX posts an average benchmark score of 69,875, placing it at the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 315 averages 18,188, at the 72nd percentile. The AMD part’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (69,996, delta -0.2%), the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70,163, delta -0.4%), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (69,515, delta +0.5%). The Intel Core 5 315, by contrast, sits alongside the AMD EPYC 9274F (18,189, delta 0%), the Intel Core i7-9700 (18,180, delta 0%), and the Intel Core i7-1365U (18,177, delta 0.1%). The delta values show that the Intel part is essentially tied with its nearest rivals, while the AMD part trades places within a very tight cluster of high-end desktop and mobile processors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is the choice for anyone whose workloads use many threads. Its 16 cores and 32 threads produce a 126.5% multi-core lead in Cinebench R23 and a 248.4% lead in PassMark multi-thread. It also holds the 94th percentile ranking against all CPUs, a full 22 percentile points above the Intel part. For rendering, data compression, encryption, or any parallel compute task, the AMD part is in a different class.

The Intel Core 5 315 is the choice for single-threaded efficiency and low power. It wins the single-thread tests by 2% and 1.4%, and its 15 W TDP is far below the AMD part’s 55 W TDP. It also uses a single-channel memory bus, which means it targets light, battery-conscious systems. The Intel part’s 72nd percentile ranking and its proximity to the Intel Core i7-1365U and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U suggest it belongs in the same performance tier as those efficient mobile chips.

The verdict from the recorded data is not ambiguous. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX dominates in multi-threaded performance and overall average score. The Intel Core 5 315 wins only in the narrow single-thread category but does so while consuming 40 W less TDP. Neither part is a substitute for the other. The AMD part is a high-performance mobile processor; the Intel part is a low-power mobile processor with competitive single-thread speed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX. It scores 29,400 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 12,981 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 126.5% advantage. It also leads PassMark multi-thread by 248.4% (53,204 versus 15,272).

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

A: Yes. It wins PassMark single-thread (4,021 versus 3,942, a 2% lead), the duplicate PassMark singlethread test, and Cinebench R23 single-core (1,832 versus 1,807, a 1.4% lead).

Q: How do the two processors compare in the overall benchmark average?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has an average benchmark score of 69,875, while the Intel Core 5 315 averages 18,188. The AMD part ranks at the 94th percentile of all CPUs; the Intel part ranks at the 72nd percentile.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has a TDP of 55 W, while the Intel Core 5 315 has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel part uses 40 W less at its rated TDP.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Who are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX sits within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F, Intel Core i7-14700KF, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, and Intel Core i7-14700K. The Intel Core 5 315 is within 0.1% of the AMD EPYC 9274F, Intel Core i7-9700, Intel Core i7-1365U, and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for AMD and 1.50 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz for AMD and 4.40 GHz for Intel. TDP is 55 W for AMD and 15 W for Intel.

The AMD part uses the AMD Socket FL1, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516. The AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel part is locked. The AMD part’s part number is 100-000001486; the Intel part’s is SAEFC. The Intel Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Cache configurations differ sharply. The AMD part has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB L3. The Intel part has 192 KB L1 total, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The AMD part supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth; the Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe support also differs. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX uses Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Core 5 315 uses Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are different as well: the AMD part has Radeon 610M, while the Intel part has Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe).

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Dragon Range. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 13,140 million transistors and a die size of 2x 71 mm². The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel. The Intel part’s transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The AMD part belongs to the 7000 series and the Ryzen 9 generation (Zen 4, Dragon Range). The Intel part belongs to the Core 5 generation (Wildcat Lake). The AMD part’s L3 cache is 64 MB, which is more than ten times the Intel part’s 6 MB shared L3. The Intel part’s L1 and L2 caches are listed as total amounts (192 KB and 2.5 MB), while the AMD part lists per-core amounts (64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core).

The memory controllers differ in channel count and bandwidth. The AMD part uses dual-channel memory, while the Intel part uses single-channel. The AMD part’s 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is 39.4% higher than the Intel part’s 59.7 GB/s. The AMD part’s PCIe implementation is Gen 5 with 28 lanes, versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes for Intel. The Intel part supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5, which the AMD part does not list.

Release dates are separated by more than two years. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX was released on 2024-01-16; the Intel Core 5 315 was released on 2026-04-15. Both are marked as Active in production status and both target the mobile market segment.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX wins every multi-threaded workload in the head-to-head set. Its 16 cores and 32 threads deliver a 540.2% lead in integer math, a 374.7% lead in data compression, and a 365.9% lead in random string sorting. These are tasks that scale with core count and thread count. The AMD part also wins encryption by 277.5%, extended instructions by 288.3%, floating-point math by 186%, and prime number finding by 143.8%. Physics simulation is 97.5% ahead. Any workload that can use more than six threads will favor the AMD part by a wide margin.

The Intel Core 5 315 wins only the single-thread tests. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,021 is 2% higher than the AMD part’s 3,942, and its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,832 is 1.4% higher than 1,807. These wins are real but narrow. The Intel part’s 15 W TDP and single-channel memory make it suitable for systems where low power consumption and light single-threaded tasks matter more than raw throughput. Its 3 nm Intel process and 4.40 GHz boost clock contribute to that efficiency profile.

The AMD part’s 94th percentile ranking versus the Intel part’s 72nd percentile shows the overall performance gap. The AMD part’s nearest rivals are high-end desktop and mobile processors like the Intel Core i7-14700K and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, with delta values within 0.7%. The Intel part’s nearest rivals are efficient mobile and older desktop parts like the Intel Core i7-1365U and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, with delta values within 0.1%. The Intel Core 5 315 is competitive within its own tier, but its tier is far below the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX.

The database also records a 3dmark suite for the AMD part only. Scores include 13,447 for max threads, 12,501 for 16 threads, 7,158 for 8 threads, 3,844 for 4 threads, 2,001 for 2 threads, and 1,027 for single thread. These results confirm that the AMD part scales consistently from 2 to 32 threads, with the max-thread score 12.1 times the single-thread score. No comparable 3dmark data exists for the Intel part in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for that suite.

The Intel part’s Cinebench R15 and R20 scores are recorded separately. It scores 1,308 in R15 multi-core and 184 in R15 single-core, and 5,452 in R20 multi-core and 769 in R20 single-core. The AMD part has no R15 or R20 entries, so cross-suite comparisons rely on the shared R23 and PassMark tests. Within those shared tests, the pattern is consistent: AMD wins multi-threaded work by large margins, and Intel wins single-threaded work by small margins.