Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Intel Core 5 210H and Intel Core 5 315 are both active mobile processors from Intel, but they are built for very different purposes. The 210H is a Raptor Lake Refresh part with 8 cores and 12 threads, while the 315 is a Wildcat Lake part with 6 cores and 6 threads. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the 210H dominates in multi-threaded and math-heavy workloads, while the 315 wins in single-threaded tests, prime number finding, and the newer Cinebench 2024-style multi-core test. The 210H holds a 77th percentile ranking versus the 315's 72nd percentile, and the average benchmark score gap is substantial at 24,872 versus 18,188.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H records an average benchmark score of 24,872, which is significantly higher than the Intel Core 5 315's 18,188.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 wins this test with a score of 12,981, while the Intel Core 5 210H scores 11,830, giving the 315 an 8.9% advantage.

Q: Which CPU is better for integer math workloads?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H is overwhelmingly stronger in PassMark integer math, scoring 61,503 compared to the 315's 31,690, a 94.1% difference.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference in PassMark?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 wins PassMark single-thread with a score of 4,021, while the 210H scores 3,539, making the 315 12% faster.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: No, the Intel Core 5 210H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Intel Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 315 boosts to 4.40 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 210H is built on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, and is part of the Raptor Lake Refresh generation. It uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is part of the Wildcat Lake generation, built on a 3 nm process node. This process difference is notable, as the 315 is a newer, denser design.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid layout with performance and efficiency cores. The 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning all cores are the same type with no hyper-threading. This directly impacts multi-threaded scaling. The 210H's cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The 315 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and only 6 MB of shared L3.

Memory support also differs. The 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but operates in a single-channel mode with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. PCIe connectivity is another differentiator: the 210H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well, with the 210H featuring Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units, while the 315 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 210H is the clear winner for heavily multi-threaded workloads that stress the CPU across many cores. It wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The largest wins come in PassMark integer math (94.1% ahead), data compression (49% ahead), and Cinebench R15 multi-core (34.3% ahead). It also takes Cinebench R20 multi-core, PassMark multi-thread, random string sorting, and floating point math. For users running video encoding, software compilation, or scientific simulations that use many threads, the 210H's 8 cores and 12 threads provide a decisive advantage.

The Intel Core 5 315 wins 6 benchmarks, but they are specific in nature. It wins Cinebench R23 multi-core (12,981 vs 11,830) despite having fewer cores, which suggests its newer architecture or higher per-core efficiency in that specific test. It also wins PassMark single-thread by 12%, PassMark find prime numbers by 52.7%, PassMark physics by 10.6%, and Cinebench R23 single-core by 3.3%. These wins indicate the 315 is better for lightly threaded tasks, single-core responsiveness, and specific mathematical operations like prime number generation. The 315's lower TDP of 15 watts versus 45 watts also positions it for thinner, fanless designs where sustained multi-core load is less common.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 210H | Intel Core 5 315 |

|----------------|-------------------|------------------|

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 12 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Wildcat Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes | Gen 4, 6 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 48EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Launch MSRP | $342 | $340 |

The specification table highlights the fundamental design split. The 210H is a higher-power, higher-core-count part with a larger L3 cache and dual-channel memory. The 315 is a lower-power, lower-core-count part with a smaller L3 cache, single-channel memory, and a much smaller process node. The 315's release date is later (2026-04-15) compared to the 210H (2024-12-17).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are mixed. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 210H scores 1,757 versus 1,308 for the 315, a 34.3% margin. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 210H again leads, 247 versus 184, a 34.2% gap. In Cinebench R20, the 210H wins multi-core by 19.3% (6,504 vs 5,452) and single-core by 19.4% (918 vs 769). However, the trend reverses in Cinebench R23. The 315 scores 12,981 in multi-core versus 11,830 for the 210H, an 8.9% victory. In R23 single-core, the 315 also wins, 1,832 versus 1,771, a 3.3% margin.

The PassMark suite reveals the 210H's dominance in compute-heavy tasks. Integer math shows the largest delta: 61,503 versus 31,690, a 94.1% advantage. Data compression is also lopsided, 217,805 versus 146,143, a 49% lead. Random string sorting goes to the 210H by 33.6% (23,451 vs 17,551), and multi-thread by 19.5% (18,252 vs 15,272). Floating point math is closer, with the 210H ahead by 6.2% (45,057 vs 42,441). Data encryption and extended instructions show smaller margins for the 210H, 9.6% and 1.7% respectively.

The 315's PassMark wins are concentrated. Find prime numbers is its best result, 112 versus 53, a 52.7% improvement. PassMark single-thread shows a 12% lead (4,021 vs 3,539), and physics shows a 10.6% lead (1,163 vs 1,040). These results confirm that the 315's strength lies in single-threaded efficiency and specific algorithmic tasks, not raw parallel throughput.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core 5 210H is the stronger overall processor for most workloads. It holds an 11 to 6 win count in head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average benchmark score, and a higher percentile ranking. Its 8 cores and 12 threads deliver substantial leads in integer math, compression, and multi-threaded Cinebench tests. The 210H is the appropriate choice for users who run multi-threaded applications and need the higher memory bandwidth of dual-channel support.

The Intel Core 5 315 is the better option for scenarios prioritizing single-thread performance and lower power consumption. Its wins in PassMark single-thread, prime number finding, and Cinebench R23 multi-core (despite fewer cores) suggest a newer, more efficient core design. The 15 watt TDP makes it suitable for ultra-portable laptops, and the 3 nm process node contributes to its efficiency. The 315's single-channel memory and 6 MB L3 cache are limitations, but for light workloads and battery-sensitive designs, the benchmark results show it holds its own. The choice between the two depends on whether the workload is primarily multi-threaded (choose the 210H) or single-threaded and power-conscious (choose the 315).