Intel Core 5 130UL vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ between the Intel Core 5 130UL and the Intel Core 5 315?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The 130UL offers four additional cores and six additional threads, which indicates a substantial difference in parallel processing capability.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 315 has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The 130UL runs 0.30 GHz higher at maximum frequency.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core 5 130UL uses a 10 nm process node. The 315’s node is considerably more advanced.

Q: What are the memory channel configurations for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL supports dual-channel memory with DDR4 and DDR5, while the Intel Core 5 315 supports single-channel memory with DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The 315 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL features Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Intel Core 5 315 features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The 130UL’s graphics solution has more execution resources.

Q: Which processor has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core 5 130UL sits at the 50th percentile. The 315 ranks higher in overall performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 130UL and Intel Core 5 315 diverge sharply in their underlying designs. The 130UL belongs to the Raptor Lake generation, with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, and uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The 315 belongs to the Wildcat Lake codename, uses a 3 nm process node, also fabricated by Intel. The process node difference is significant: the 315’s 3 nm node represents a much denser transistor layout compared to the 130UL’s 10 nm node.

Cache structures differ notably. The 130UL provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The 315 provides 192 KB of L1 cache (as a single figure), 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. While the 315 has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations, the 130UL has double the total L3 cache, which can benefit workloads that repeatedly access a large working set.

Memory support also separates the two. The 130UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a single-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The 130UL’s dual-channel bus offers greater potential memory throughput, although the 315’s LPDDR5X support targets low-power mobile operation.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The 130UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The 130UL has two additional PCIe lanes, which could matter for devices that require more direct CPU-attached bandwidth.

The socket designs are entirely different. The 130UL uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop-oriented socket. The 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile ball-grid array package. This reflects their market segments: the 130UL is listed as a Desktop processor, while the 315 is listed as a Mobile processor. The 315’s release date is later, 2026-04-15 compared to 2024-04-07 for the 130UL.

The integrated graphics units also differ. The 130UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The 130UL’s execution unit count is higher, suggesting stronger graphics throughput, but the 315’s Xe3 architecture is newer.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both lack ECC memory support. The 315 has a launch MSRP of $340, while the 130UL has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data in the database covers the Intel Core 5 315 extensively, while the Intel Core 5 130UL has no recorded benchmark scores. This asymmetry shapes the comparison. The 315’s average benchmark score is 18188, and its percentile ranking is 72. The 130UL’s average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile ranking is 50.

The 315’s Cinebench results show a multicore score of 1308 in Cinebench R15 and a single-core score of 184 in the same test. In Cinebench R20, the 315 scores 5452 multicore and 769 single-core. In Cinebench R23, the 315 scores 12981 multicore and 1832 single-core. These numbers indicate that the 315 delivers balanced performance across both multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering workloads.

PassMark results for the 315 reveal specific strengths. The data compression score is 146143, which is a high output for that workload. Data encryption scores 11119. Extended instructions score 13143. Floating point math scores 42441. Integer math scores 31690. Multithread performance scores 15272. Physics scores 1163. Random string sorting scores 17551. Single thread scores 4021 (recorded twice in the database with the same value).

The nearest rivals for the 315, based on average benchmark scores, include the AMD EPYC 9274F with an average score of 18189 and a delta of 0 percent, the Intel Core i7-9700 with an average score of 18180 and a delta of 0 percent, the Intel Core i7-1365U with an average score of 18177 and a delta of 0.1 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U with an average score of 18176 and a delta of 0.1 percent. The 315 essentially matches the EPYC 9274F and the Core i7-9700, while sitting marginally ahead of the Core i7-1365U and the Ryzen 7 5700U.

Because the 130UL has no recorded benchmarks, the head-to-head comparison cannot rely on direct test scores. Instead, the data indicates that the 315 has a measurable performance profile while the 130UL does not. The 315’s percentile of 72 versus the 130UL’s percentile of 50 suggests that, in the broader database of CPUs, the 315 outperforms a larger share of processors than the 130UL does.

The 315’s single-channel memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s appears in the data, and its PassMark scores reflect that configuration. The 130UL’s dual-channel memory support may provide a bandwidth advantage in theory, but the absence of benchmark results means no recorded verification exists.

The 315’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12981 places it in a range comparable to desktop processors from earlier generations, based on the rival list including the Intel Core i7-9700. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 1832 indicates strong per-thread performance, which aligns with its high boost clock of 4.40 GHz.

The 130UL’s higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz and its 10 cores suggest potential advantages in threaded workloads, but the database contains no scores to confirm this. The 315’s 6 cores and 6 threads, combined with its 3 nm node, produce the recorded scores above. The data cannot validate the 130UL’s actual performance, so any conclusion about its speed remains speculative.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear picture: the Intel Core 5 315 has a full benchmark profile, an average score of 18188, and a 72nd percentile ranking. The Intel Core 5 130UL has no benchmark scores, an average score of 0, and a 50th percentile ranking. Based strictly on the database, the 315 outperforms the 130UL in measured performance.

The 315’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F and the Intel Core i7-9700, both with nearly identical average scores. This places the 315 in the performance class of those established processors. The 130UL’s percentile of 50 indicates that it sits at the median of the database, meaning half of recorded CPUs score higher and half score lower, but no direct score exists to quantify its output.

For users who prioritize mobile operation, the 315 fits that segment with its BGA 1516 socket and Mobile market listing. For users who need a desktop processor with Socket 1700, the 130UL fits that segment. The 315’s 3 nm process node and newer release date (2026) indicate a more modern design, while the 130UL’s 10 nm node and earlier release date (2024) indicate an older generation.

The 315’s launch MSRP is $340. The 130UL has no recorded MSRP. The 315’s memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s is recorded, while the 130UL’s memory bandwidth is not recorded. The 315’s integrated graphics (Xe3 with 2 Xe cores) differ from the 130UL’s (Iris Xe with 80 EU), but no graphics benchmarks exist for either.

The data supports choosing the 315 for measured performance, as its benchmark scores and percentile ranking are the only quantitative evidence available. The 130UL cannot be recommended based on performance data, because the database contains none. Its higher core count and boost clock remain unverified by tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications:

• Cores: 130UL has 10, 315 has 6.
• Threads: 130UL has 12, 315 has 6.
• Base clock: 130UL has 1.60 GHz, 315 has 1.50 GHz.
• Boost clock: 130UL has 4.70 GHz, 315 has 4.40 GHz.
• Socket: 130UL uses Intel Socket 1700, 315 uses Intel BGA 1516.
• Architecture/codename: 130UL uses Raptor Lake (Raptor Lake-PS), 315 uses Wildcat Lake.
• Process node: 130UL uses 10 nm, 315 uses 3 nm.
• L1 cache: 130UL has 80 KB per core, 315 has 192 KB.
• L2 cache: 130UL has 1.25 MB per core, 315 has 2.5 MB.
• L3 cache: 130UL has 12 MB shared, 315 has 6 MB shared.
• Memory support: 130UL supports DDR4 and DDR5, 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.
• Memory bus: 130UL is dual-channel, 315 is single-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: 130UL has no recorded value, 315 has 59.7 GB/s.
• PCIe: 130UL has Gen 4 with 8 lanes, 315 has Gen 4 with 6 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: 130UL has Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, 315 has Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe).
• Market segment: 130UL is Desktop, 315 is Mobile.
• Release date: 130UL is 2024-04-07, 315 is 2026-04-15.
• Launch MSRP: 130UL has none, 315 has $340.
• Part number: 130UL is unknown, 315 is SAEFC.

Both share the same TDP of 15 watts, same manufacturer (Intel), no ECC support, no unlocked multiplier, and active production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 315 wins in recorded benchmark performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12981 and single-core score of 1832 provide concrete evidence of rendering capability. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4021 indicates strong per-core performance, which is useful for lightly threaded applications. Its data compression score of 146143 suggests efficiency in file compression and decompression tasks. Its floating point math score of 42441 and integer math score of 31690 point to solid arithmetic throughput.

The 315 also wins in process node efficiency, using a 3 nm node compared to the 130UL’s 10 nm node. This implies lower power draw per transistor, though the TDP for both is recorded as 15 watts. The 315’s later release date (2026) indicates a newer design generation.

The 315 wins in memory bandwidth specification, with a recorded 59.7 GB/s, although the 130UL has no recorded bandwidth value. The 315’s support for LPDDR5X gives it access to low-power memory, which suits its Mobile market segment. Its integrated graphics, Intel Xe3 with 2 Xe cores, represents a newer graphics architecture.

The Intel Core 5 130UL wins in core and thread count, offering 10 cores and 12 threads versus the 315’s 6 cores and 6 threads. This gives the 130UL a structural advantage for heavily parallel workloads, assuming software can use all threads. Its boost clock of 4.70 GHz exceeds the 315’s 4.40 GHz, which could benefit single-threaded tasks that scale with frequency.

The 130UL wins in L3 cache capacity, with 12 MB shared versus 6 MB shared on the 315. Larger L3 cache can reduce memory latency for repeated access patterns. Its dual-channel memory bus supports DDR4 and DDR5, offering flexibility for desktop builds. Its PCIe lane count of 8 exceeds the 315’s 6 lanes, which may help with multi-device setups.

The 130UL wins in integrated graphics execution units, with 80 EU versus 2 Xe cores on the 315. This suggests higher graphics throughput for the 130UL, though no graphics benchmarks exist in the data.

In use-case terms, the 315 suits mobile systems where its BGA package, LPDDR5X support, and recorded performance profile fit compact designs. The 130UL suits desktop systems on Socket 1700 where its higher core count, larger L3 cache, and dual-channel memory support can be leveraged. The data does not record any benchmark wins for the 130UL, so its advantages remain theoretical. The 315’s measured wins are extensive and documented across Cinebench and PassMark tests.