CPU Comparison

The Intel Core 5 320 and Intel Core 5 315 are two mobile processors from the same Wildcat Lake family, sharing identical core counts, cache amounts, and the same launch MSRP of $340. Despite their similarities, benchmark results reveal a distinct split in performance characteristics, with the Core 5 320 winning 12 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons while the Core 5 315 takes the remaining 5, often by dramatic margins in specific workloads. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 18023 for the 320 versus 18188 for the 315, but this aggregate figure masks significant divergence in how each chip handles single-threaded versus multi-threaded tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking difference appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Core 5 315 scores 12981 against the 320’s 6197, a 52.3% advantage that dominates the comparison. This is not a marginal lead but a wholesale victory in heavily threaded rendering workloads. Similarly, in Cinebench R15 multicore, the 315 posts 1308 versus 1054 for the 320, a 19.4% gap. These results suggest the 315 sustains higher multi-core throughput under sustained load, likely due to more favorable boost behavior across all six cores.

However, the single-core picture reverses dramatically. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 320 scores 276 against the 315’s 184, representing a 50% advantage, the largest percentage win for either processor in any test. The 320 also leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with 1926 versus 1832, a 5.1% edge, and in Cinebench R20 single-core with 771 versus 769, a slim 0.3% margin. This pattern indicates the 320’s 4.60 GHz boost clock, compared to the 315’s 4.40 GHz, translates directly into superior single-thread performance.

Beyond Cinebench, the PassMark suite shows the 320 winning most everyday tasks, though by smaller margins. The 320 leads in integer math (32323 vs 31690, +2%), floating-point math is a virtual tie (42440 vs 42441, 0% delta), and the 320 wins in multithread (15450 vs 15272, +1.2%), physics (1221 vs 1163, +5%), and random string sorting (18038 vs 17551, +2.8%). Data compression favors the 320 at 148779 versus 146143 (+1.8%), while data encryption goes to the 315 at 11119 versus 10984 (-1.2% for the 320). The 315 also edges ahead in find prime numbers (112 vs 110, -1.8%) and extended instructions (13143 vs 13262, +0.9% for the 320).

The overall win count of 12 for the 320 versus 5 for the 315 might suggest a clear victor, but the magnitude of the 315’s multicore wins, particularly the 52.3% Cinebench R23 margin, carries more weight in rendering scenarios. The 320’s wins are typically narrow, under 3%, with the notable exception of the 50% single-core R15 result and the 5% physics lead.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s 3 nm process node and share the Wildcat Lake codename, indicating they are the same silicon generation. They each feature 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading, and both have identical cache hierarchies: 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory controller is also the same, supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, and neither supports ECC memory.

The fundamental architectural difference lies in clock speeds. The base clock is identical at 1.50 GHz for both, but the boost clock differs: the 320 reaches 4.60 GHz while the 315 tops out at 4.40 GHz. This 200 MHz boost advantage for the 320 explains the single-core benchmark leads. Conversely, the 315’s superior multicore scores, despite a lower boost clock, suggest differences in sustained power delivery or thermal management that are not visible in the spec sheet. Both processors have a TDP of 15 watts, use the same Intel BGA 1516 socket, and integrate the same Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

One notable difference is the part number: the 320 uses SAE3H while the 315 uses SAEFC, indicating they are distinct SKUs despite identical core configurations. Both are listed as Active production status with the same release date of 2026-04-15. The PCIe implementation is also identical, Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The market segment is Mobile for both, and neither processor carries a series designation.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 315 is the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering and compute-heavy tasks. Its 52.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore makes it substantially faster for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales across all six cores. The 19.4% advantage in Cinebench R15 multicore reinforces this pattern. Data encryption also favors the 315, and it ekes out wins in prime number finding, though these are minor. For users running Blender, HandBrake, or similar applications that hammer all cores for extended periods, the 315’s sustained multicore performance is the deciding factor.

The Core 5 320 excels in single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks. Its 50% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core is exceptional, and it maintains smaller but consistent advantages in R20 and R23 single-core tests. The 320 also wins in integer math, physics, data compression, random string sorting, and the PassMark multithread aggregate, though the multithread win is modest at 1.2%. For everyday desktop responsiveness, office productivity, web browsing, and legacy applications that rely on one or two fast cores, the 320’s higher boost clock delivers tangible benefits. The 5% physics win is also notable for any simulation or gaming workload that depends on single-thread physics calculations.

The data suggests a workload-dependent choice. Users who prioritize rendering throughput should select the 315, while those who value snappy single-core response and general-purpose integer performance will find the 320 more suitable. The 320’s win count is higher, but the 315’s wins are in heavier, more time-consuming workloads where percentage differences translate to minutes saved.

Specification Differences

The two processors share nearly all specifications, with only a few fields showing differences. The most significant is the boost clock: the 320 runs at 4.60 GHz while the 315 runs at 4.40 GHz. Base clock, core count, threads, TDP, socket, process node, codename, and generation are identical. Cache sizes match exactly: 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support, bus width, bandwidth, and ECC capability are the same. Integrated graphics, PCIe lanes, market segment, production status, release date, launch MSRP, and multiplier lock status all match. The only other difference is the part number, with the 320 identified as SAE3H and the 315 as SAEFC. There are no differences in foundry, transistors, die size, or total L3 cache, as these fields are null or absent for both.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 320 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 315 has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Both share the same 1.50 GHz base clock.

Q: Why does the Core 5 315 win Cinebench R23 multicore by such a large margin?

A: The Core 5 315 scores 12981 in Cinebench R23 multicore versus 6197 for the Core 5 320, a 52.3% difference. Despite having a lower boost clock, the 315 demonstrates superior sustained multicore throughput in this benchmark, likely due to differences in power management behavior not reflected in the spec sheet.

Q: Are the two processors identical in cache configuration?

A: Yes, both have 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. There is no difference in cache hierarchy between the two.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for both processors?

A: Both the Intel Core 5 320 and the Intel Core 5 315 have a launch MSRP of $340.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core 5 320 leads in single-threaded tests, with a 50% advantage in Cinebench R15 single-core (276 vs 184), a 5.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core (1926 vs 1832), and a 0.3% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core (771 vs 769). PassMark single-thread scores are close, with the 320 at 4045 and the 315 at 4021.

Q: Do both processors use the same integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both feature Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. There is no difference in the integrated graphics solution.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off between two otherwise identical processors. The Core 5 315 is the superior choice for multi-threaded rendering workloads, as demonstrated by its 52.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and 19.4% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore. Any user whose primary tasks involve CPU rendering, video encoding, or batch processing across all six cores should select the 315, as these are the workloads where the largest time savings occur. The 315’s average benchmark score of 18188 is also slightly higher than the 320’s 18023, and it sits at the 72nd percentile, matching the 320’s percentile ranking.

The Core 5 320 is the better pick for general-purpose mobile use where single-thread performance dominates. Its 50% advantage in Cinebench R15 single-core is the most dramatic single-test result in this comparison, and it maintains leads in integer math, physics, data compression, and the PassMark multithread aggregate. For users who run office applications, web browsers, or legacy software that relies on one or two fast cores, the 320’s higher boost clock provides a smoother experience. The 320 wins 12 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, showing broader consistency across mixed workloads.

In practice, the decision hinges on whether the user’s heaviest workloads are multi-threaded or single-threaded. The 315’s multicore victories are so large that they outweigh its single-core deficits for rendering professionals. The 320’s wins are generally narrower, but it wins more tests overall, making it the safer default for varied daily use. Both processors are active products with identical pricing, so the choice comes down entirely to workload profile rather than cost or availability. The benchmark data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-specific recommendation.