CPU Comparison

Both the Intel Core 5 330 and the Intel Core 5 315 are 6-core, 6-thread mobile processors built on the same 3 nm Wildcat Lake architecture, yet they land in very different spots in the competitive landscape. The Core 5 330 sits adjacent to the Intel Core i3-14100, while the Core 5 315 is bracketed by the AMD EPYC 9274F and the Intel Core i7-9700. Despite the near-identical specifications, the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, with the 330 taking the majority of wins by a slim but consistent margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the consistency of the Intel Core 5 330's victories. Across all six Cinebench tests, the 330 wins by exactly 1.3% in multi-core workloads and by 1.1% to 1.3% in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 330 scores 13150 against the 315's 12981, while in single-core the gap is 1856 versus 1832. This uniformity suggests the 330's higher boost clock is doing the work across the board. The Cinebench R15 results mirror this exactly, with the 330 posting 1325 multi-core and 186 single-core versus the 315's 1308 and 184.

The PassMark suite tells a more varied story. The 330's largest win comes in integer math, where it scores 33258 against the 315's 31690, a 4.9% advantage. Floating point math also favors the 330 by 3.4%, with scores of 43885 versus 42441. The physics test shows a 3.3% lead for the 330, scoring 1201 to the 315's 1163. Prime number finding is another 330 win, albeit smaller at 1.8% (114 vs 112). Single-thread performance in PassMark gives the 330 a 1.7% edge, with 4088 versus 4021.

However, the 315 does fight back in three specific PassMark workloads. The most notable is extended instructions, where the 315 wins by 2.5%, scoring 13143 against the 330's 12808. The 315 also takes data compression by 0.6% (146143 vs 145287) and data encryption by 0.4% (11119 vs 11076). These wins are narrow compared to the 330's margins, but they show the 315 is not simply a slower clone. The overall tally stands at 14 wins for the 330 and 3 for the 315 across the 17 head-to-head benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core 5 330 as the stronger processor in nearly every general-purpose workload. Its 4.60 GHz boost clock versus the 315's 4.40 GHz translates into consistent leads in both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench tests, with the 330 winning every one of those six benchmarks. If your primary concern is raw compute performance in rendering, physics simulation, or integer-heavy tasks, the 330 is the clear choice from these numbers.

The 315's three wins are concentrated in specific data-handling tasks: extended instructions, data compression, and data encryption. These are workloads where the 315 outperforms the 330 despite the lower clock speed. This makes the 315 a rational pick if your workflow is dominated by encryption, compression, or SIMD-heavy code. The margins are small, the largest being 2.5% in extended instructions, but they are consistent across those three tests.

One important consideration: the 315's nearest rival list includes the AMD EPYC 9274F and the Intel Core i7-9700, with an average score of 18188, while the 330's rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100 and the Intel Core 7 360, averaging 18345. The 330's average benchmark score of 18345 is 157 points higher than the 315's 18188. Both chips sit at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, so neither is a standout in the broader market, but the 330 is meaningfully ahead of the 315 in aggregate.

Where Each One Wins

For the Intel Core 5 330, the wins are broad and general. It leads in every Cinebench test, which makes it the better option for content creation tasks like video rendering and 3D modeling that rely on these workloads. The PassMark integer math and floating point math results reinforce this, indicating strength in scientific computing, financial modeling, and any number-crunching application. The physics score advantage points to better performance in physics simulations, which can translate to gaming physics or engineering simulations. The single-thread advantage in both Cinebench and PassMark suggests snappier responsiveness in everyday tasks and better performance in lightly-threaded applications.

The Intel Core 5 315 carves out a niche in data-centric workloads. Its win in extended instructions suggests it handles AVX or similar vectorized operations more efficiently, which is relevant for multimedia encoding, image processing, and some scientific code. The data compression and encryption wins make it the better pick for database workloads, file archiving, and VPN or secure communication tasks. If your daily driver involves a lot of zipping, unzipping, or encrypting files, the 315's small edge in these areas could add up over time, even though it loses the overall compute battle.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 scores 13150 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 1.3% ahead of the Intel Core 5 315's 12981.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 315 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the 315 wins three tests: PassMark data compression (146143 vs 145287), data encryption (11119 vs 11076), and extended instructions (13143 vs 12808).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark integer math, where the Intel Core 5 330 leads by 4.9%, scoring 33258 versus the 315's 31690.

Q: Are these processors the same generation and architecture?

A: Yes, both are from the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, built on Intel's 3 nm process, with the same 6 cores, 6 threads, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 315 boosts to 4.40 GHz. Their base clocks are identical at 1.50 GHz.

Q: Do these CPUs have different integrated graphics?

A: No, both feature Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, and both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory in a single-channel configuration.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Wildcat Lake codename and the same Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation designation. They are fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process node, and both are produced by Intel's own foundry. The core configuration is identical: 6 cores and 6 threads, with a 192 KB L1 cache and a 2.5 MB L2 cache. The shared L3 cache is also the same at 6 MB. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and both have a 15 W TDP.

The memory subsystem is identical as well, with both supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe connectivity matches at Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are the same Intel Xe3 Graphics implementation with 2 Xe cores. Both are active production parts with a release date of 2026-04-15 and a locked multiplier.

The only architectural differences between the two are the boost clock and the part number. The 330 boosts to 4.60 GHz while the 315 boosts to 4.40 GHz. This 200 MHz difference in maximum boost is the sole hardware distinction that explains the performance deltas. Both have a base clock of 1.50 GHz.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two chips are nearly identical, with only a handful of fields differing. The most consequential difference is the boost clock: the Intel Core 5 330 reaches 4.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 315 tops out at 4.40 GHz. This is the primary driver behind the 330's consistent benchmark wins.

The launch MSRP also differs, with the 330 priced at $309 and the 315 at $340. The part numbers are different as well, with the 330 using SAE3G and the 315 using SAEFC.

All other specifications match exactly: 6 cores, 6 threads, 1.50 GHz base clock, 15 W TDP, Intel BGA 1516 socket, 3 nm process node, 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, 6 MB shared L3, DDR5/LPDDR5X memory support, single-channel memory bus, 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, no ECC, PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, mobile market segment, active production status, 2026-04-15 release date, and a locked multiplier. Both chips occupy the same 72nd percentile among all CPUs, confirming they are close siblings with the 330 holding a measurable edge in most workloads.