Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core 9 270H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database records a clear performance hierarchy between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core 9 270H wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 315 wins 3, including both PassMark single-thread tests and a tie in prime number finding. The Core 9 270H sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs tracked, versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 315. Its average benchmark score of 38335 places it alongside the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H, which scores 38312 with a delta of 0.1 percent, while the Core 5 315, with an average score of 18188, sits directly beside the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18189. Buyers who need maximum multi-core throughput, heavy integer math, or data compression should select the Core 9 270H. Buyers who prioritize single-thread PassMark performance, lower power draw, or a more recent process node should consider the Core 5 315.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process node manufactured by Intel, while the Core 9 270H uses the Raptor Lake-H codename with a Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process. The Core 5 315 belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, whereas the Core 9 270H belongs to the Core 9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. This process node difference is substantial, and the recorded data shows the newer node delivers competitive single-thread performance despite far lower power specifications. The Core 5 315 carries a TDP of 15, while the Core 9 270H carries a TDP of 45. The Core 5 315 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core 9 270H uses Intel BGA 1744.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading indicated. The Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid layout with performance and efficiency cores. Cache allocations reflect this: the Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3, while the Core 9 270H has 80 KB per core of L1, 2 MB per core of L2, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core 9 270H therefore provides four times the shared L3 capacity. Clock speeds also differ, with the Core 5 315 base clock at 1.50 GHz and boost at 4.40 GHz, while the Core 9 270H starts at 2.70 GHz base and boosts to 5.80 GHz.

Memory support differs in both type and channel configuration. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, though no bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core 9 270H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well, with the Core 5 315 using Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units and the Core 9 270H using Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 270H dominates in every multi-threaded Cinebench test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2464 against 1308 for the Core 5 315, a delta of 46.9 percent. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 10268 against 5452, also a 46.9 percent delta. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the gap narrows to 27.9 percent, with scores of 18000 versus 12981. The Core 9 270H also wins every Cinebench single-core test, though the margins vary. In R15 single-core, it leads 347 to 184, a 47 percent delta. In R20 single-core, it leads 1449 to 769, a 46.9 percent delta. In R23 single-core, the lead shrinks to 10.2 percent, with scores of 2040 versus 1832.

PassMark results show a similar pattern, with the Core 9 270H winning data compression by 56.2 percent, data encryption by 42.6 percent, extended instructions by 34.5 percent, floating point math by 39.9 percent, integer math by 67.5 percent, multithread by 46.9 percent, physics by 40.8 percent, and random string sorting by 52.4 percent. The largest single margin in the entire comparison is in integer math, where the Core 9 270H scores 97654 against 31690.

The Core 5 315 wins the two PassMark single-thread tests by 2 percent, scoring 4021 against 3944. It also ties in the find prime numbers test at 112 points each. The database records this tie as a win for the Core 5 315 due to the delta of 0 percent. These three wins are narrow, but they indicate that the Wildcat Lake design, despite its 6-core configuration and lower power envelope, achieves competitive single-thread throughput in PassMark's measurement. Its 3 nm process and higher boost clock relative to its base clock appear to offset some of the Core 9 270H's raw frequency advantage in this specific test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 270H has an average benchmark score of 38335, while the Intel Core 5 315 has an average score of 18188. The Core 9 270H ranks at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 315.

Q: Does the Core 5 315 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4021 against 3944, a 2 percent margin, and it ties in the PassMark find prime numbers test at 112 points each. These are the only recorded wins for the Core 5 315.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 270H scores 97654 against 31690 for the Core 5 315, a delta of 67.5 percent. Data compression shows the second largest gap at 56.2 percent.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core 9 270H also has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 6 MB shared L3 for the Core 5 315.

Q: Which processor uses a newer manufacturing process?

A: The Core 5 315 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Core 9 270H uses a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: What is the difference in power specifications?

A: The Core 5 315 has a TDP of 15, while the Core 9 270H has a TDP of 45. The Core 5 315 also has a lower base clock of 1.50 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, and a lower boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus 5.80 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the closest multi-threaded result between the two, with the Core 9 270H scoring 18000 against 12981, a delta of 27.9 percent. This is significantly narrower than the R15 and R20 multi-core deltas, both at 46.9 percent. The R23 single-core test shows the narrowest Cinebench gap overall, with the Core 9 270H leading 2040 to 1832, a 10.2 percent margin. These results suggest that as the workload scales in duration and complexity, the Core 5 315 closes some of the gap, though it never overtakes the Core 9 270H in any Cinebench test.

The PassMark single-thread tests provide the only outright wins for the Core 5 315. In both the single_thread and singlethread tests, it scores 4021 against 3944, a 2 percent delta. This is a small but consistent margin, and it appears twice in the recorded data under different test labels. The find prime numbers test results in a tie at 112 points each, which the database assigns as a win for the Core 5 315 due to the zero delta. These results indicate that the Wildcat Lake core design, despite its lower clock speeds, delivers competitive per-thread integer performance in certain workloads.

The integer math test is the most lopsided result in the entire comparison. The Core 9 270H scores 97654, which is 67.5 percent higher than the Core 5 315's 31690. This suggests that the Core 9 270H's combination of 14 cores, 20 threads, and larger cache provides a substantial advantage in heavily parallel integer workloads. Data compression shows a 56.2 percent delta, with the Core 9 270H scoring 333785 against 146143. Random string sorting shows a 52.4 percent delta, with scores of 36867 versus 17551.

The multithread PassMark test shows a 46.9 percent delta, with the Core 9 270H scoring 28764 against 15272. This matches the Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core deltas exactly, all at 46.9 percent. Physics testing shows a 40.8 percent delta, with scores of 1966 versus 1163. Floating point math shows a 39.9 percent delta, with scores of 70640 versus 42441. Extended instructions show a 34.5 percent delta, with scores of 20079 versus 13143. Data encryption shows a 42.6 percent delta, with scores of 19369 versus 11119.

The Core 9 270H's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H at 38312 with a 0.1 percent delta, the Intel Xeon w3-2525 at 38392 with a negative 0.1 percent delta, the Intel Core i5-13600HX at 38261 with a 0.2 percent delta, and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 at 38221 with a 0.3 percent delta. The Core 5 315's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18189 with a 0 percent delta, the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18180 with a 0 percent delta, the Intel Core i7-1365U at 18177 with a 0.1 percent delta, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 18176 with a 0.1 percent delta. These comparison points show that each processor clusters tightly with its performance class, and the 38335 versus 18188 average score gap places them in distinctly different segments of the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification category. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process, while the Core 9 270H uses Raptor Lake-H with a 10 nm process. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.40 GHz versus 5.80 GHz. TDP is 15 versus 45. Sockets are Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 1744.

Cache configurations differ in structure and capacity. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 9 270H has 80 KB per core of L1, 2 MB per core of L2, and 24 MB of shared L3. Memory support differs, with the Core 5 315 supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with no recorded bandwidth figure. PCIe support differs, with the Core 5 315 providing Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes and the Core 9 270H providing Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ, with the Core 5 315 using Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units and the Core 9 270H using Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ as well, with the Core 5 315 released in April 2026 and the Core 9 270H released in December 2024. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 315 is $340, and the launch MSRP for the Core 9 270H is $697.