Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a split picture between these two Wildcat Lake mobile processors. The Intel Core 5 315 wins 10 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 7 350 takes 7. The margins, however, tell the real story.

The single largest gap comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Here the Core 5 315 posts a score of 12,981 against the Core 7 350's 8,030. That is a 61.7% advantage for the Core 5 315, an enormous lead in a heavily threaded workload. The Core 5 315 also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 7.2% (1,308 vs 1,220) and Cinebench R20 multi-core by a slimmer 1.5% (5,452 vs 5,373). In PassMark multi-thread, the Core 5 315 edges ahead by 0.7% (15,272 vs 15,170).

The Core 7 350's biggest win is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 292 against the Core 5 315's 184. That is a 37% deficit for the Core 5 315, the largest margin in either direction across the entire test suite. The Core 7 350 also leads Cinebench R23 single-core by 10.5% (2,046 vs 1,832) and PassMark single-thread by 1.9% (4,100 vs 4,021). In Cinebench R20 single-core, however, the tables turn slightly: the Core 5 315 wins by 1.5% (769 vs 758).

The remaining tests are closer. PassMark floating point math goes to the Core 7 350 by 0.9% (42,809 vs 42,441). PassMark integer math favors the Core 7 350 by 6.1% (33,734 vs 31,690). PassMark physics also goes to the Core 7 350 by 0.9% (1,173 vs 1,163). The Core 5 315 counters with wins in PassMark extended instructions by 9.1% (13,143 vs 12,045), PassMark data compression by 2.1% (146,143 vs 143,123), PassMark data encryption by 1.7% (11,119 vs 10,933), PassMark find prime numbers by 4.7% (112 vs 107), and PassMark random string sorting by 1.8% (17,551 vs 17,238).

The average benchmark score for the Core 5 315 is 18,188, placing it at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 350 averages 17,779, at the 71st percentile. The Core 5 315's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18,189 (0% delta) and the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18,180 (0% delta). The Core 7 350's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 5 221TE at 17,860 (-0.5% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17,891 (-0.6% delta).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the Core 5 315 is the stronger multi-core performer, while the Core 7 350 leads in single-threaded workloads. The 61.7% Cinebench R23 multi-core margin is decisive. If your work or play relies on heavily threaded applications, the Core 5 315 is the obvious choice from the recorded data.

The Core 7 350's single-core leadership, particularly the 37% win in Cinebench R15 single-core and the 10.5% win in Cinebench R23 single-core, suggests it holds an edge for lightly threaded tasks. The Core 7 350 also wins integer math by 6.1%, which can matter for certain productivity workloads.

Both chips share the same 6-core, 6-thread configuration, the same 1.50 GHz base clock, the same 15 W TDP, and the same socket. The Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Core 5 315 boosts to 4.40 GHz. That higher boost clock likely explains the Core 7 350's single-thread wins. The Core 5 315, despite the lower boost clock, posts dramatically better multi-core results, suggesting a different power or thermal behavior under sustained loads.

For a system where the workload is predominantly multi-threaded, the Core 5 315 delivers the better recorded performance. For single-threaded responsiveness and integer-heavy tasks, the Core 7 350 has the edge. The 17-test head-to-head record, with 10 wins for the Core 5 315 and 7 for the Core 7 350, favors the Core 5 315 overall, but the magnitude of specific wins matters more than the count.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Wildcat Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process node. They share the same 6-core, 6-thread layout, with no hyper-threading. The integrated graphics are identical: Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Both use the Intel BGA 1516 socket and are classified as mobile segments.

The only architectural distinction in the data is the cache allocation. The Core 5 315 lists L1 cache as 192 KB and L2 cache as 2.5 MB, without specifying per-core or shared distribution. The Core 7 350 lists L1 as 192 KB per core and L2 as 2.5 MB per core. Both share 6 MB of L3 cache. Since both chips have 6 cores, the per-core notation on the Core 7 350 implies the same total L1 and L2 capacity as the Core 5 315, but the database records them differently.

The boost clock difference of 4.80 GHz on the Core 7 350 versus 4.40 GHz on the Core 5 315 is the most significant architectural-level difference that affects benchmark outcomes. The base clocks are identical at 1.50 GHz, and the power envelope is identical at 15 W.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in exactly four recorded specification fields. The boost clock is 4.80 GHz on the Core 7 350 versus 4.40 GHz on the Core 5 315. The cache notation differs: the Core 5 315 lists L1 as 192 KB and L2 as 2.5 MB, while the Core 7 350 lists the same values as per-core. The launch MSRP is $469 for the Core 7 350 and $340 for the Core 5 315. The part numbers differ as well, with the Core 5 315 carrying SAEFC and the Core 7 350 carrying SAE3F.

Every other specification field is identical: 6 cores, 6 threads, 1.50 GHz base clock, 15 W TDP, Intel BGA 1516 socket, Wildcat Lake codename, 3 nm process node, 6 MB shared L3 cache, DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory support, single-channel memory bus, 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, no ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, mobile market segment, active production status, and release date of April 15, 2026. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 315 boosts to 4.40 GHz.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 wins 10 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core 7 350 winning 7.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel Core 5 315 scores 12,981 versus the Core 7 350's 8,030, a 61.7% lead.

Q: Are the integrated graphics different between the two?

A: No, both use Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for both processors?

A: Both support 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth over a single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X bus.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 315 is the clear winner in multi-threaded benchmarks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12,981 crushes the Core 7 350's 8,030 by 61.7%. It also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 7.2% and Cinebench R20 multi-core by 1.5%. PassMark multi-thread goes to the Core 5 315 by a small 0.7% margin. Data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, and random string sorting all favor the Core 5 315. These results point to sustained all-core workloads as the Core 5 315's home turf.

The Intel Core 7 350 wins single-threaded tests decisively. Its Cinebench R15 single-core score of 292 is 37% ahead of the Core 5 315's 184. Cinebench R23 single-core also goes to the Core 7 350 by 10.5%, and PassMark single-thread by 1.9%. Integer math favors the Core 7 350 by 6.1%, and floating point math by 0.9%. Physics simulation also edges to the Core 7 350 by 0.9%. These wins align with the Core 7 350's higher 4.80 GHz boost clock.

For a mobile system that spends most of its time in heavily threaded rendering, encoding, or simulation tasks, the Core 5 315 delivers the stronger recorded performance, and its lower launch MSRP of $340 versus $469 reinforces that position. For users who prioritize single-thread responsiveness, integer-heavy code, or tasks that scale poorly beyond a few threads, the Core 7 350 offers the better results, though at a higher launch MSRP. The data does not show a single dominant processor across all tests, but the multi-core advantage of the Core 5 315 is far larger than the single-core advantage of the Core 7 350, making the Core 5 315 the safer overall pick for most workloads.