Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a thoroughly one-sided comparison. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark entries, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 records the higher score. The Intel Core 5 315 does not secure a single win in any measured test. This is a decisive performance gap, not a marginal one.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Core Ultra 5 235 leads by a consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 1488 against the Core 5 315's 1308, a delta of -12.1% from the perspective of the slower chip. Single-core in the same test shows 210 versus 184, a -12.4% delta. The pattern holds in Cinebench R20 and R23. In R20 multicore, the scores are 6202 versus 5452, and in R23 multicore, 14769 versus 12981, both representing a -12.1% delta. The single-core results in R20 (875 vs 769) and R23 (2085 vs 1832) also show a -12.1% delta. The consistency of this roughly 12% deficit across the entire Cinebench lineage indicates that the advantage of the Core Ultra 5 235 is structural rather than workload-specific.

The Passmark tests reveal a far larger chasm. The Core Ultra 5 235 dominates in every category, with deltas ranging from -11% to -69.8%. The single-thread Passmark score shows 4516 versus 4021, a -11% delta, which is the narrowest gap in the entire dataset. This suggests that while per-core performance is superior in the Core Ultra 5 235, the difference is modest compared to the multicore results.

The multicore Passmark tests are where the Core Ultra 5 235 runs away with the comparison. In Passmark multithread, it scores 37816 against 15272, a -59.6% delta. Integer math shows 87948 versus 31690, a -64% delta, and floating point math shows 117951 versus 42441, also a -64% delta. The data compression test is particularly stark: 390711 versus 146143, a -62.6% delta. Data encryption shows 29293 versus 11119, a -62% delta. Extended instructions show 32752 versus 13143, a -59.9% delta. Random string sorting shows 48980 versus 17551, a -64.2% delta.

The largest single delta is in the find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 371 against 112, a -69.8% delta. The physics test shows 2570 versus 1163, a -54.7% delta. These are not close calls; the Core Ultra 5 235 delivers roughly 2.4 to 3.3 times the throughput in several of these workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins in every measured category, but the nature of its wins varies by workload type. The most significant advantages appear in heavily parallel, throughput-oriented tasks. The Passmark multithread, integer math, floating point math, data compression, and encryption tests all show deltas of roughly -60% or worse. These workloads scale with core count and memory bandwidth, and the Core Ultra 5 235 leverages its 14 cores and dual-channel memory to full effect.

The Core 5 315, meanwhile, is not without merit in specific contexts, though it does not win any tests. Its closest relative performance comes in single-threaded workloads. The Passmark single-thread score delta is only -11%, and the Cinebench single-core deltas hover around -12%. This indicates that for lightly threaded applications, the Core 5 315 is competitive, falling behind by approximately one tenth rather than by half or more. The data suggests that tasks which depend primarily on a single core, such as older software or certain scripting workloads, would see a much smaller performance penalty on the Core 5 315.

The physics test, with a -54.7% delta, sits between the extreme multicore and the moderate single-thread results. This suggests a workload that is partially parallel but not fully scaling with the additional cores of the Core Ultra 5 235. Similarly, the extended instructions test at -59.9% and the random string sorting test at -64.2% indicate that the Core Ultra 5 235's advantage grows as the instruction-level parallelism and memory access demands increase.

The Core 5 315, with 6 cores and 6 threads, is clearly oriented toward efficiency and basic tasks, while the Core Ultra 5 235, with 14 cores and 14 threads, is built for heavier compute. The benchmark data confirms this split: the Core Ultra 5 235 is the appropriate choice for any workload that can utilize multiple cores, while the Core 5 315 shows its best relative behavior in single-threaded scenarios.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 in the Cinebench R23 multicore test?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 scores 14769, while the Core 5 315 scores 12981. This is a -12.1% delta from the Core 5 315's perspective.

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

A: The largest gap is in the Passmark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 371 against the Core 5 315's 112, a -69.8% delta.

Q: Is the Core 5 315 competitive in any benchmark?

A: The Core 5 315 does not win any benchmark, but its closest result is in the Passmark single-thread test, where it scores 4021 against 4516, a -11% delta. The Cinebench single-core tests also show a similar -12% delta.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory-intensive workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 has a substantial lead in memory-related tasks. In the Passmark data compression test, it scores 390711 versus 146143, a -62.6% delta. In data encryption, it scores 29293 versus 11119, a -62% delta.

Q: What does the percentile ranking indicate for each processor?

A: The Core 5 315 is in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18188. The Core Ultra 5 235 is in the 89th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 46062.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in the Passmark test?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 has a Passmark single-thread score of 4516, compared to the Core 5 315's 4021. The delta is -11%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every fundamental specification. The Intel Core 5 315 uses 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 uses 14 cores and 14 threads. The base clock of the Core 5 315 is 1.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 235 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz. The boost clock is 4.40 GHz for the Core 5 315 and 5.00 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235.

The thermal design power (TDP) differs significantly: the Core 5 315 has a TDP of 15, while the Core Ultra 5 235 has a TDP of 65. The socket types are different as well: the Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 235 uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core 5 315 is designated for the mobile market segment, while the Core Ultra 5 235 is a desktop processor.

Memory support differs: the Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 only. The memory bus is single-channel for the Core 5 315 and dual-channel for the Core Ultra 5 235. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 315 and 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 235. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ: the Core 5 315 has Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 235 has Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are different: the Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe), while the Core Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU.

The release dates differ: the Core 5 315 was released on 2026-04-15, while the Core Ultra 5 235 was released on 2025-01-06. The part numbers also differ: SAEFC for the Core 5 315 and SRQAS for the Core Ultra 5 235. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural differences are substantial. The Intel Core 5 315 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename, with a generation listed as "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)". The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is based on the Arrow Lake architecture, with the codename "Arrow Lake-S" and a generation of "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)".

Both processors are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Core 5 315 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 235 is fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 235 has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 315's transistor count and die size are not recorded.

The cache hierarchy shows significant differences. The Core 5 315 has an L1 cache of 192 KB, an L2 cache of 2.5 MB, and an L3 cache of 6 MB (shared). The Core Ultra 5 235 has an L1 cache of 192 KB (per core), an L2 cache of 3 MB (per core), and an L3 cache of 24 MB (shared). The per-core L2 allocation on the Core Ultra 5 235 is notably larger, and its shared L3 cache is four times the size of the Core 5 315's.

The Core Ultra 5 235 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 5 315 has no series designation. The integrated graphics architecture also differs: the Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units. These architectural choices reflect the different market positioning: the Core 5 315 is a mobile-oriented, low-power design, while the Core Ultra 5 235 is a desktop-oriented, high-throughput design.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 outperforms the Intel Core 5 315 in every single recorded test, and in most tests by a wide margin. The average benchmark score of the Core Ultra 5 235 is 46062, which places it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 315 has an average score of 18188 and sits in the 72nd percentile.

For users or systems requiring heavy multicore throughput, the Core Ultra 5 235 is the clear choice. Its 14 cores, dual-channel memory, and larger cache deliver roughly 2.4 to 3.3 times the performance in parallel workloads such as data compression, encryption, and math operations. The 14-core configuration and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth directly support this advantage.

For workloads that are primarily single-threaded, the Core 5 315 is closer in performance, with a delta of only -11% in the Passmark single-thread test and around -12% in Cinebench single-core tests. However, it still loses those tests. The Core 5 315's lower TDP of 15 and mobile socket suggest it is designed for efficiency-constrained environments, but the recorded data shows no scenario where it wins a benchmark.

The Core Ultra 5 235 also carries a higher percentile ranking, 89 versus 72, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and the Intel Core i9-13900HX, both with average scores within 0.1% of its own. The Core 5 315's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F and the Intel Core i7-9700, with scores within 0.1% as well. This places the two processors in entirely different performance strata.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is the superior processor in every measured aspect. The Core 5 315 is a lower-performing, lower-power mobile chip that cannot match the desktop-oriented Core Ultra 5 235 in any benchmark. The only context where the Core 5 315 shows relative strength is in single-threaded tasks, where the gap narrows to roughly 11-12%, but it still does not take the lead.