Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 221E is the dominant performer in this comparison, winning all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its greatest advantages appear in heavily multithreaded and data-intensive workloads. The PassMark integer math test shows the largest gap at 271.8%, while data compression trails at 121.9%. These results indicate the 221E is built for sustained parallel throughput across many cores.

The Intel Core 5 315, by contrast, does not win a single benchmark in the recorded data. Its closest result comes in PassMark single-thread tests, where it trails by only 3.1%. This narrow margin suggests the 315's architecture can approach the 221E's per-core performance in lightly threaded scenarios, but it falls far behind in workloads that scale with core count and cache capacity.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The 221E suits desktop workloads such as rendering, compilation, compression, and simulation, where its 14 cores and 20 threads can be fully utilized. The 315, with 6 cores and 6 threads, targets low-power mobile systems where efficiency and compact integration matter more than raw throughput. Its 15 W TDP and single-channel memory bus confirm a design philosophy centered on portability and battery life rather than benchmark dominance.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this split. The 221E posts an average score of 40144, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The 315 averages 18188, which lands in the 72nd percentile. Despite the large gap, the 315's percentile remains respectable, indicating it still outperforms a majority of processors in the database.

The nearest rivals for each chip further illustrate their different positioning. The 221E sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700, AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, AMD Ryzen 9 270, and Intel Core i9-13905H. The 315 matches the AMD EPYC 9274F, Intel Core i7-9700, Intel Core i7-1365U, and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U within 0.1%. These rival clusters show that the 221E competes with upper-midrange desktop and high-end mobile parts, while the 315 aligns with older mainstream desktop chips and efficient mobile processors.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How do their single-core performances compare?

A: The 221E leads in every single-thread benchmark. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3661 against 1832 for the 315, a 99.8% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the margin narrows to 3.1%, with scores of 4147 and 4021.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The 221E supports dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 315 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The 221E supports ECC memory, while the 315 does not.

Q: Which chip has the newer manufacturing process?

A: The 315 uses a 3 nm process node. The 221E uses a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs?

A: The 221E has a launch MSRP of $232. The 315 has a launch MSRP of $340.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern. Across R15, R20, and R23, the 221E doubles or nearly doubles the 315's multicore scores. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 221E scores 25933 versus 12981, a 99.8% delta. Single-core results follow the same shape: the 221E's R23 single-core score of 3661 is 99.8% higher than the 315's 1832. The R15 single-core test shows the widest relative gap at 100%, with scores of 368 and 184.

PassMark integer math delivers the most lopsided result in the entire dataset. The 221E scores 117813, while the 315 manages 31690, a 271.8% difference. This test is particularly sensitive to core count and per-core integer throughput, both areas where the 221E holds a substantial advantage. Data compression follows at 121.9%, with the 221E scoring 324285 against 146143. Random string sorting shows a 114.7% delta, with scores of 37686 and 17551.

Floating-point math and physics tests also favor the 221E heavily. Floating-point math scores 79028 versus 42441, an 86.2% gap. Physics scores 2230 versus 1163, a 91.7% gap. Data encryption shows a 72.7% delta, with scores of 19205 and 11119. Extended instructions, which exercise SIMD and specialized instruction paths, show a narrower 38.6% delta, with scores of 18216 and 13143. Prime number finding, a test that stresses integer latency, shows a 54.5% delta, with scores of 173 and 112.

The PassMark multithread test reflects the core-count disparity, with the 221E scoring 30510 against 15272, a 99.8% delta. PassMark single-thread, appearing twice in the database as both "single_thread" and "singlethread," shows the same result in both entries: 4147 versus 4021, a 3.1% delta. This near-parity indicates that when only one thread is active, the architectural differences between the two chips matter far less than the raw core-count difference in multithreaded workloads.

The 315's best relative showing is therefore in single-threaded PassMark tests, where it trails by just 3.1%. Its worst relative showing is in integer math, where it trails by 271.8%. The 221E wins every recorded test, with deltas ranging from 3.1% to 271.8%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: 2.70 GHz for the 221E versus 1.50 GHz for the 315. Boost clocks also differ, with the 221E reaching 5.20 GHz and the 315 reaching 4.40 GHz.

Thermal design power shows the largest practical difference. The 221E is rated at 65 W, while the 315 is rated at 15 W. This 50 W gap reflects their different market segments: desktop for the 221E, mobile for the 315.

Socket compatibility differs completely. The 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 315 uses Intel BGA 1516. The BGA socket indicates the 315 is soldered to the motherboard, typical for ultraportable designs. The 221E's Socket 1700 allows for desktop installation and upgrade paths.

Cache hierarchies diverge substantially. The 221E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The 315 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The 221E's much larger L3 pool provides a significant advantage in workloads with large working sets.

Memory support differs in both type and channel configuration. The 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported only on the 221E.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The 221E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The 221E's newer PCIe standard and higher lane count enable faster discrete GPU and NVMe connections.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 221E includes UHD Graphics 730. The 315 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The 315's integrated graphics architecture is newer, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks for either chip.

Release dates place the two chips in different product cycles. The 221E was released on 2025-01-12. The 315 was released on 2026-04-15. The 315's launch MSRP of $340 is higher than the 221E's $232, despite the 315's lower performance, reflecting the cost of its newer process node and mobile integration.

Architecture Differences

The 221E is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, while the 315 uses Wildcat Lake. Both are Intel designs, but they target different ends of the product spectrum. Bartlett Lake is a desktop-oriented architecture using a 10 nm process node and a 257 mm² die. Wildcat Lake is a mobile-focused architecture using a 3 nm process node; its die size is not recorded in the database.

The process node difference is notable. The 315's 3 nm process is two generations ahead of the 221E's 10 nm process in terms of lithography. This explains how the 315 achieves a 15 W TDP while still reaching a 4.40 GHz boost clock. The 221E's larger 10 nm process and 65 W TDP allow higher absolute clocks, reaching 5.20 GHz, but at much greater power consumption.

Core organization differs fundamentally. The 221E provides 14 cores with 20 threads, indicating the use of hyper-threading on some or all of its cores. The 315 provides 6 cores with 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading is enabled. This makes the 221E a more capable multitasker and parallel workload processor.

Cache structure reflects these architectural priorities. The 221E distributes 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with a large 24 MB shared L3. The 315 uses 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2, but only 6 MB of shared L3. The 315's smaller L3 suggests a design optimized for power efficiency and die area rather than large in-flight datasets.

The 315's integrated graphics are more advanced. Its Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores represents a newer GPU generation than the UHD Graphics 730 found in the 221E. This aligns with the 315's mobile positioning, where integrated graphics quality matters more than in desktop systems that typically pair with discrete GPUs.

Memory controller design differs as well. The 221E's dual-channel controller with DDR4 and DDR5 support provides flexibility for desktop builders. The 315's single-channel controller with DDR5 and LPDDR5X support targets compact mobile boards where power and board space are at a premium. LPDDR5X support is particularly suited to soldered low-power memory configurations.

The 315's newer architecture uses significantly fewer resources: fewer cores, fewer threads, less cache, fewer PCIe lanes, and a narrower memory bus. Yet it delivers close per-thread performance in PassMark single-thread tests, trailing by only 3.1%. This suggests Wildcat Lake's per-core efficiency is high, even if its aggregate throughput cannot match Bartlett Lake's larger core count and higher clocks.

The 221E's 87th percentile ranking versus the 315's 72nd percentile confirms that the desktop part occupies a higher overall performance tier. The nearest rival clusters reinforce this: the 221E trades blows with Ryzen 7-class and Core i9-class parts, while the 315 aligns with older Core i7 and Ryzen 7 mobile parts. Each chip is well matched to its intended environment, but the benchmark data shows no scenario where the 315 outperforms the 221E.