Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins every multi-threaded test in the database. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 39190 versus 12981 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 66.9% advantage. In PassMark multithread, it scores 46107 versus 15272, also a 66.9% gap.

Q: How large is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Core 9 273PQE leads in all single-core tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5532 versus 1832, a 66.9% advantage. The smallest gap is PassMark single-thread, where the Core 9 scores 4573 versus 4021, a 12.1% difference.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core 9 also supports simultaneous multithreading, while the Core 5 does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 315 boosts to 4.40 GHz. The Core 9 also has a higher base clock at 3.40 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

Q: Do these processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Intel Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, which is a mobile socket. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. They are not interchangeable.

Q: How do they compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 9 273PQE offers dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 315 uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 9 also supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 does not.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 315 does not win any of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Every single test, from Cinebench R15 multi-core to PassMark integer math, goes to the Intel Core 9 273PQE. The database shows zero wins for the Core 5 and 17 wins for the Core 9.

That said, the Core 5 315 occupies a different market segment. It is a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, designed for thin-and-light laptops. Its 6 cores and 6 threads target efficiency and battery life rather than peak throughput. The Core 9 273PQE, with a 125 W TDP, is a desktop part built for sustained heavy workloads.

In practical terms, the Core 5 315 wins on portability and power envelope. The data shows it uses 15 W versus 125 W for the Core 9. It also uses a smaller process node, 3 nm versus 10 nm, which indicates better power efficiency per transistor. For users who need a laptop processor that sips power, the Core 5 is the only mobile option in this comparison.

The Core 9 273PQE wins on every performance metric. It also offers more PCIe lanes, Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes on the Core 5. This makes it suitable for high-bandwidth expansion cards, GPUs, and NVMe storage. The Core 5's 6 PCIe lanes limit expansion severely.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation. It is built on a 3 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, part of the Core 9 generation, on a 10 nm process node. Both are made by Intel, but the process difference is significant: 3 nm versus 10 nm suggests the Core 5 uses a more advanced manufacturing technology.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 9's per-core L2 allocation scales with its 12 cores, giving it much more total cache capacity for multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core 9 supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core 5 is single-channel, the Core 9 is dual-channel. The Core 9 supports ECC memory; the Core 5 does not.

Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core 5's Xe3 architecture is newer, but the Core 9's desktop iGPU has a larger thermal budget to work with.

The Core 5 is listed as a mobile segment processor with a BGA 1516 socket. The Core 9 is a desktop segment processor with Socket 1700. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option on either part.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. Core count: 6 versus 12. Thread count: 6 versus 24. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. Boost clock: 4.40 GHz versus 5.90 GHz. TDP: 15 W versus 125 W.

Cache: the Core 5 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB L3. The Core 9 has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB L3. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC support: false versus true.

PCIe: the Core 5 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), the Core 9 offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus UHD Graphics 770. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel Socket 1700. Process node: 3 nm versus 10 nm.

Release dates differ: the Core 5 launched on 2026-04-15, the Core 9 on 2026-03-08. The Core 9 came first. Launch MSRP is $340 for the Core 5 and $589 for the Core 9.

Both are Active in production status. Both are from Intel. Both have locked multipliers. The Core 5 has part number SAEFC, the Core 9 has part number SA4Q9.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 9 273PQE dominates every benchmark in the database. The largest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 scores 164629 versus 31690, an 80.8% lead. This test measures raw arithmetic throughput, and the Core 9's 12 cores and 24 threads give it a massive advantage.

Data compression shows a 75.1% gap: the Core 9 scores 585752 versus 146143. This test benefits from both core count and memory bandwidth, and the Core 9 has more of both. Data encryption shows a 62.5% lead for the Core 9, scoring 29636 versus 11119.

Extended instructions show a 66.1% gap, with the Core 9 at 38743 and the Core 5 at 13143. Floating-point math shows 125546 versus 42441, a 66.2% difference. Random string sorting shows 53167 versus 17551, a 67% gap.

Cinebench results are consistent. R15 multi-core: 3950 versus 1308, a 66.9% lead. R15 single-core: 557 versus 184, a 67% lead. R20 multi-core: 16459 versus 5452, a 66.9% lead. R20 single-core: 2323 versus 769, a 66.9% lead. R23 multi-core: 39190 versus 12981, a 66.9% lead. R23 single-core: 5532 versus 1832, a 66.9% lead.

PassMark multithread shows 46107 versus 15272, a 66.9% gap. Physics shows 2754 versus 1163, a 57.8% gap. Find prime numbers shows 198 versus 112, a 43.4% gap, the second-smallest margin after single-thread.

The smallest gap is PassMark single-thread: 4573 versus 4021, a 12.1% difference. This shows that even in lightly-threaded tasks, the Core 9's higher boost clock of 5.90 GHz versus 4.40 GHz gives it a clear edge. The Core 5's newer 3 nm process does not compensate for the clock deficit.

The average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy. The Core 5 has an average score of 18188, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 9 has an average score of 66099, placing it in the 93rd percentile. The Core 9's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D with a 0.3% lower score, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus with a 0.1% higher score. The Core 5's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-9700 at a 0% delta and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at a 0.1% delta.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. For any workload where performance matters, the Intel Core 9 273PQE is the only choice. It wins all 17 benchmarks, with margins from 12.1% to 80.8%. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, 5.90 GHz boost, dual-channel memory, and 36 MB L3 cache make it a desktop workhorse. The 93rd percentile ranking confirms its position among top-tier CPUs.

The Intel Core 5 315 is not a performance part by comparison. Its 6 cores, 6 threads, and 15 W TDP target mobile efficiency. The 3 nm process and Xe3 graphics suggest modern low-power design, but the benchmark data shows it cannot keep pace. The 72nd percentile ranking places it firmly in mid-range territory. Its single-channel memory and 6 PCIe lanes further limit its potential in high-throughput tasks.

For a laptop user who prioritizes battery life and portability, the Core 5 315 fits that role. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Core 9's 125 W, and its BGA 1516 socket is a mobile form factor. For a desktop user who needs rendering, compilation, data analysis, or heavy multitasking, the Core 9 273PQE delivers 3 to 4 times the multi-core score at a higher power cost.

The launch MSRP reflects the positioning: $340 for the Core 5, $589 for the Core 9. The Core 9's higher price buys substantially more performance, as the benchmark margins show. The Core 5's lower price buys mobility and efficiency, but the recorded data shows no performance category where it leads. Choose based on segment: mobile efficiency versus desktop throughput.