AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 and Intel Core 5 315 are both 15-watt mobile processors aimed at thin-and-light laptops, yet the benchmark data reveals a stark performance disparity. The Intel Core 5 315 wins 15 of 15 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from a negligible 0.3% to a commanding 82.1%. Despite the AMD chip’s higher base clock and its 4-core/8-thread configuration versus Intel’s 6-core/6-thread setup, the Intel part’s newer 3 nm process and higher boost clock translate into consistently superior scores across every workload category in the database. This analysis breaks down the specifics of each processor’s strengths, architectural choices, and the implications of the measured results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 18188, compared to the AMD Ryzen 5 40’s 15882. The Intel chip also sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part is at the 70th percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 scores 12981 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 62.7% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 40’s 4841. This is the largest single-benchmark delta in the entire comparison.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 40 win any benchmark at all?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the AMD Ryzen 5 40 wins zero tests, while the Intel Core 5 315 wins all 15 comparisons, including both Cinebench and PassMark workloads.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a peak bandwidth of 88.0 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory but uses a single-channel bus, capping bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 boosts up to 4.40 GHz, which is slightly higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 40’s 4.30 GHz boost clock. However, the AMD chip has a much higher base clock at 2.80 GHz versus Intel’s 1.50 GHz.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Core 5 315 uses a 3 nm process at Intel’s own foundry.

Where Each One Wins

The data presents a one-sided picture, but the nuances of each win reveal where the Intel Core 5 315 excels most and where the AMD Ryzen 5 40 manages to stay competitive. The AMD processor’s only near-miss is in PassMark integer math, where it scores 31598 against Intel’s 31690, a delta of just 0.3%. This suggests that in pure integer arithmetic workloads, the two chips are nearly identical, possibly due to the AMD chip’s higher base clock compensating for architectural differences.

The Intel Core 5 315’s largest advantages appear in floating-point and physics simulations. In PassMark floating point math, Intel scores 42441 versus AMD’s 15194, a 64.2% lead. Similarly, in PassMark physics, Intel’s 1163 dwarfs AMD’s 432, a 62.9% gap. These results point to Intel’s architecture handling complex mathematical operations and physics calculations far more efficiently. The Intel chip also dominates in prime number finding, scoring 112 versus AMD’s 20, an 82.1% margin, which is the single largest win in the entire dataset.

For single-threaded performance, the Intel Core 5 315 is decisively ahead with a 4021 PassMark single-thread score versus 2477, a 38.4% lead. This translates into better responsiveness for everyday tasks and lightly-threaded applications. The AMD Ryzen 5 40’s dual-channel memory support provides a theoretical bandwidth advantage, but the benchmark results show that this does not translate into practical performance wins in the recorded tests, as Intel’s single-channel configuration still delivers superior scores across the board.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 architecture, specifically the Mendocino codename, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It features 4 cores and 8 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to handle concurrent workloads. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process at Intel, with 6 physical cores and 6 threads, meaning it does not use hyper-threading. Despite having fewer threads, the Intel chip’s higher core count and newer process node appear to provide a substantial performance advantage.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The AMD chip allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The Intel part provides 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and a shared 6 MB L3 cache. Intel’s larger aggregate cache, especially the 50% larger L3, likely contributes to its superior performance in data-compression and extended-instruction tests. The Intel chip also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while AMD uses PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes, giving Intel a more modern I/O interface.

Memory support diverges as well. AMD uses LPDDR5 with dual-channel access and 88.0 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X with single-channel access and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The architectural choice of single-channel memory is unusual for a performance-oriented mobile chip, yet the benchmark results show Intel still outperforms AMD despite the bandwidth deficit. The integrated graphics differ too: AMD uses Radeon 610M, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The manufacturing process difference, 6 nm versus 3 nm, is the most fundamental architectural distinction, explaining Intel’s ability to achieve higher clock speeds and efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specification fields. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz for AMD versus 1.50 GHz for Intel, but boost clocks are closer at 4.30 GHz and 4.40 GHz, respectively. The AMD chip uses AMD Socket FT6, while Intel uses Intel BGA 1516. Process nodes differ at 6 nm (TSMC) versus 3 nm (Intel). Die size is 100 mm² for AMD, while Intel’s die size is not recorded in the database.

Cache specifications show Intel with a total L1 of 192 KB versus AMD’s per-core 64 KB, and L2 of 2.5 MB versus AMD’s per-core 512 KB. The L3 cache is 6 MB shared for Intel and 4 MB shared for AMD. Memory support is LPDDR5 for AMD and DDR5/LPDDR5X for Intel, with memory bus widths of dual-channel versus single-channel. Memory bandwidth is 88.0 GB/s for AMD and 59.7 GB/s for Intel. PCIe support is Gen 3 with 4 lanes for AMD and Gen 4 with 6 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics are Radeon 610M for AMD and Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for Intel. The Intel chip has a recorded launch MSRP of $340, while AMD’s launch MSRP is null. Both are mobile-market segments, active production, and locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results illustrate the scale of Intel’s dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel scores 1308 against AMD’s 790, a 39.6% lead. In single-core, Intel’s 184 beats AMD’s 165.5 by 10.1%. The newer Cinebench R23 test magnifies these gaps: multi-core shows Intel at 12981 versus 4841, a 62.7% difference, and single-core shows Intel at 1832 versus 1150, a 37.2% difference. These are the headline numbers for multi-threaded productivity and single-thread responsiveness.

PassMark tests reveal where Intel’s architectural efficiency shines. Data compression is close, with Intel at 146143 and AMD at 141533, a 3.2% margin. Data encryption shows Intel at 11119 versus AMD’s 6646, a 40.2% lead. Extended instructions score 13143 for Intel versus 6437 for AMD, a 51.0% gap. Find prime numbers is the most lopsided: Intel scores 112, AMD scores 20, an 82.1% difference. Floating point math is another blowout at 42441 versus 15194, or 64.2%. Integer math is the tightest race at 31690 versus 31598, a 0.3% difference. Multithread scores are 15272 for Intel and 9341 for AMD, a 38.8% lead. Physics shows Intel at 1163 versus AMD’s 432, a 62.9% gap. Random string sorting is closer at 17551 versus 15124, a 13.8% margin. Single-thread tests confirm Intel’s advantage with 4021 versus 2477, a 38.4% lead.

The delta percentages paint a clear picture: Intel wins every test, but the smallest margins are in integer math and data compression, while the largest are in prime number finding and floating-point math. This suggests AMD’s Zen 2 architecture is competitive in basic integer operations but falls far behind in more complex mathematical workloads that benefit from Intel’s newer process and larger caches.

The Verdict

The benchmark data strongly indicates that the Intel Core 5 315 is the superior processor for nearly all recorded workloads. With a 62.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 38.4% lead in PassMark single-thread, Intel delivers meaningfully better performance for both multi-threaded rendering and everyday responsive tasks. The Intel chip’s 3 nm process and 6-core configuration provide a clear advantage over AMD’s 4-core Zen 2 design, despite AMD’s higher base clock and dual-channel memory support.

For users prioritizing raw performance in applications like video encoding, 3D rendering, or complex simulations, the Intel Core 5 315 is the obvious choice based on the recorded scores. Its 59.7 GB/s single-channel memory bandwidth does not appear to bottleneck its performance, as it wins all memory-sensitive tests in the dataset. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 remains competitive only in integer math, where the 0.3% delta is essentially a tie, but it fails to secure a single win elsewhere.

The Intel chip also holds a higher percentile ranking at 72 versus AMD’s 70, and its average benchmark score of 18188 places it alongside much larger server-class parts like the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700 in the nearest rivals list. The AMD Ryzen 5 40’s average of 15882 is comparable to the AMD EPYC 75F3 and Intel Core Ultra 5 134U, which are older or lower-tier parts. For any workload measured in this database, the Intel Core 5 315 delivers superior results, making it the recommended pick from a pure performance standpoint.