Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core i5-14400F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant overall victory for the Intel Core i5-14400F, which wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 315 takes only 3 wins, but those wins reveal a specific efficiency and single-thread advantage that is worth examining.

The most lopsided result in the database is the PassMark integer math test, where the Core i5-14400F scores 81,524 against 31,690 for the Core 5 315, a 61.1% margin. This gap is larger than any other recorded difference and indicates a substantial advantage in basic arithmetic throughput. Data compression follows a similar pattern, with the Core i5-14400F scoring 315,521 versus 146,143, a 53.7% lead. Random string sorting also favors the desktop part by 46.3%, with scores of 32,680 and 17,551 respectively.

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 40% deficit for the Core 5 315 across all six tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core i5-14400F posts 21,645 against 12,981, while in single-core it manages 3,055 versus 1,832. The same 40% delta appears in Cinebench R15 and R20 for both single-core and multicore workloads. This uniformity across rendering tests suggests a structural difference rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Multithreaded performance in PassMark tells the same story. The Core i5-14400F scores 25,470 versus 15,272, a 40% advantage. Floating point math shows a 30.8% lead for the desktop chip at 61,319 against 42,441. Extended instructions favor the Core i5-14400F by 34.1%, and data encryption by 34.4%, with scores of 19,937 versus 13,143 and 16,949 versus 11,119 respectively. Physics simulation rounds out the losses for the mobile chip at 1,523 versus 1,163, a 23.6% deficit.

The Core 5 315 wins are concentrated in two specific areas. PassMark single-thread performance gives the mobile chip 4,021 against 3,701 for the Core i5-14400F, an 8.6% advantage. The same 8.6% delta appears in the duplicate single-thread entry. The third win comes in prime number finding, where the Core 5 315 scores 112 against 86, a 30.2% margin. These wins show that the Wildcat Lake chip can outperform the Raptor Lake part when the workload is narrow and latency-sensitive, even though it loses almost everything else.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i5-14400F is the clear choice for heavily threaded workloads. Its 10 cores and 16 threads, combined with 20 MB of shared L3 cache, give it a structural advantage in rendering, compression, encryption, and integer math. The Cinebench results across R15, R20, and R23 all show the same 40% lead, which indicates that the desktop chip scales consistently with core count in multi-threaded rendering tasks. PassMark multithread at 25,470 versus 15,272 reinforces this pattern.

The Core 5 315 wins in prime number finding by 30.2%, a workload that benefits from high per-core efficiency and low latency rather than raw core count. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,021 also beats the Core i5-14400F's 3,701 by 8.6%. This suggests that for lightly threaded, latency-bound tasks, the Wildcat Lake chip's architecture, built on a smaller process node, delivers better responsiveness per clock.

The Core i5-14400F also wins in physics simulation by 23.6%, a benchmark that typically responds to both thread count and clock speed. Its 4.70 GHz boost clock versus the Core 5 315's 4.40 GHz provides part of the explanation, but the additional threads matter more in this workload.

For memory-sensitive tasks, the Core i5-14400F has the advantage of a dual-channel memory bus and support for both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core 5 315 uses a single-channel bus limited to DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The desktop chip's 20 MB shared L3 cache dwarfs the 6 MB shared cache on the mobile part, which likely explains the large margins in data compression and random string sorting.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design lineages. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process node, while the Core i5-14400F uses the Raptor Lake-R codename with a 10 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process gap is significant: the 3 nm node allows for substantially higher transistor density and efficiency.

The Core 5 315 is a mobile part with 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core i5-14400F is a desktop part with 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating that 6 of its cores support hyperthreading while 4 are efficiency cores. The die size for the desktop chip is 215 mm², while the mobile chip's die size is not recorded in the database.

Cache architecture differs fundamentally between the two. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core i5-14400F specifies its cache on a per-core basis: 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 20 MB of shared L3. The sheer difference in L3 capacity, 20 MB versus 6 MB, has direct consequences for workloads that cycle through large datasets.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core i5-14400F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, though its memory bandwidth is not recorded. The mobile chip has no ECC support, while the desktop chip supports ECC memory.

Integrated graphics are present on the Core 5 315 in the form of Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics, which is why its model name carries the F suffix. PCIe support also differs: the Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core i5-14400F provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

Specification Differences

The socket is a hard divider between these two parts. The Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket, while the Core i5-14400F uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop LGA socket. This alone determines which platforms can use each chip.

Base clock and boost clock both favor the desktop part. The Core 5 315 runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. The Core i5-14400F runs at 2.50 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. The thermal design power differs by a factor of more than four: 15 watts for the mobile chip versus 65 watts for the desktop chip.

Core and thread counts are a major separator, with 6 cores and 6 threads on the mobile side versus 10 cores and 16 threads on the desktop side. The desktop part also has a larger L3 cache at 20 MB shared versus 6 MB shared. The release dates are far apart as well, with the Core i5-14400F launching on 2024-01-07 and the Core 5 315 launching on 2026-04-15.

The launch MSRP for the Core 5 315 is $340. The launch MSRP for the Core i5-14400F is $196. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not officially supported on either part.

Market segment differs: the Core 5 315 is classified as Mobile, while the Core i5-14400F is classified as Desktop. The part numbers also differ, with SAEFC for the Core 5 315 and SRN3RSRN47 for the Core i5-14400F. Both are listed as Active in production status.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 315 wins 3.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Core i5-14400F leads by 61.1%, scoring 81,524 versus 31,690.

Q: Where does the Intel Core 5 315 outperform the Core i5-14400F?

A: The Core 5 315 wins in PassMark find prime numbers by 30.2% (112 versus 86) and in PassMark single-thread by 8.6% (4,021 versus 3,701).

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus. The Core i5-14400F supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus and also supports ECC memory.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Core 5 315 is built on a 3 nm process node. The Core i5-14400F is built on a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.