Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX, winning 17 out of 17 recorded comparisons. The margins vary significantly across workloads, from a relatively narrow single-thread gap to massive multi-thread deficits for the Core 5 315.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 34,731 against 12,981 for the Core 5 315, a delta of -62.6% from the perspective of the smaller chip. The single-core result tells a similar story: 4,903 versus 1,832, also a -62.6% gap. These are not edge cases; the same approximate 62-63% deficit appears consistently across Cinebench R15 (3,500 vs 1,308 multi-core, 494 vs 184 single-core) and R20 (14,587 vs 5,452 multi-core, 2,059 vs 769 single-core).

PassMark results show even larger disparities in certain computational tasks. The floating point math test records 129,819 for the Ultra 5 235HX versus 42,441 for the Core 5 315, a -67.3% difference. Integer math follows at 97,177 versus 31,690, a -67.4% gap. Data compression shows 426,417 against 146,143 (-65.7%), while data encryption shows 32,697 versus 11,119 (-66%). Prime number finding is the most lopsided: 361 versus 112, a -69% deficit.

The closest margin appears in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Ultra 5 235HX scores 4,683 versus 4,021, a -14.1% gap. This remains a clear victory, but it is far narrower than the multi-thread and math-heavy workloads. The physics test shows -54.4% (2,550 vs 1,163), and random string sorting shows -65.5% (50,929 vs 17,551). Extended instructions show -62.2% (34,808 vs 13,143), and the multithread aggregate shows -62.6% (40,849 vs 15,272).

The average benchmark scores confirm the hierarchy: the Core Ultra 5 235HX sits at 52,073, placing it in the 91st percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 315 averages 18,188, which lands in the 72nd percentile. For context, the Core Ultra 5 235HX's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8124P (average 52,121, -0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (51,947, +0.2%), and the Intel Core i7-14700 (52,301, -0.4%). The Core 5 315's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F (18,189, 0% delta), the Intel Core i7-9700 (18,180, 0%), and the Intel Core i7-1365U (18,177, +0.1%). These figures indicate that the Core 5 315 competes in a lower performance tier entirely, while the Ultra 5 235HX sits alongside desktop-class processors.

Architecture Differences

The two chips differ fundamentally in core configuration. The Core 5 315 uses 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 235HX uses 14 cores and 14 threads, also lacking hyper-threading but with more than double the physical core count. This core disparity directly explains the consistent 62-67% deficits in multi-threaded workloads.

Clock speeds also favor the larger chip. The Core 5 315 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost of 4.40 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 235HX starts at 2.90 GHz base and reaches 5.10 GHz boost. The higher boost clock contributes to the single-thread advantage, while the higher base clock helps sustained multi-thread performance.

Cache allocations differ substantially. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235HX has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The L3 cache is four times larger on the Ultra 5 235HX, which supports its superiority in data-heavy tasks like compression and encryption.

Process node details show both use 3 nm lithography, but the foundry differs: Intel for the Core 5 315, TSMC for the Ultra 5 235HX. The Ultra 5 235HX also carries transistor and die size data in the database: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 315 has no such figures recorded. The codenames differ as well: Wildcat Lake for the Core 5 315, Arrow Lake-HX for the Ultra 5 235HX.

Memory architecture favors the Ultra 5 235HX on bandwidth. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X through a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 5 235HX supports DDR5 through a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 235HX provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ in configuration. The Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 5 235HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 EU. The Core 5 315 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket; the Ultra 5 235HX uses Intel BGA 2114. Thermal design power is recorded at 15 for the Core 5 315 and 55 for the Ultra 5 235HX, indicating a higher power envelope for the larger chip.

The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 315 but unlocked on the Ultra 5 235HX, enabling overclocking on the latter. The Ultra 5 235HX also has a recorded part number (SRVFL) and a release date of January 12, 2025, while the Core 5 315 lists April 15, 2026, and part number SAEFC. The Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340; the Ultra 5 235HX has no MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX outperforms the Intel Core 5 315 in every recorded benchmark. The smallest margin is 14.1% in single-thread PassMark, while the largest is 69% in prime number finding. The average benchmark score of 52,073 versus 18,188 places the Ultra 5 235HX in the 91st percentile versus the 72nd percentile, respectively.

The Core 5 315 sits among rivals like the Intel Core i7-9700 and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, both with average scores around 18,180. The Ultra 5 235HX sits among the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Intel Core i9-13900F, with averages around 52,000. This performance tier difference is stark.

For workloads that rely on multi-core throughput, such as rendering, compression, or encryption, the Ultra 5 235HX is the only viable choice based on the recorded data. Its 14 cores versus 6, 24 MB L3 versus 6 MB, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 59.7 GB/s all support this outcome. For single-thread tasks, the Ultra 5 235HX still leads, though by a smaller margin.

The Core 5 315 has a lower thermal design power of 15 versus 55, which suggests it fits in more power-constrained designs. It also has a launch MSRP of $340, which is the only price data available. The database does not record a price for the Ultra 5 235HX, so no cost comparison can be made. The Core 5 315 also supports LPDDR5X memory, which the Ultra 5 235HX does not, potentially suiting low-power mobile configurations.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 235HX scores 361 versus 112, a -69% difference for the Core 5 315.

Q: How do the single-thread scores compare?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 5 235HX scores 4,683 versus 4,021, a -14.1% gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 235HX scores 4,903 versus 1,832, a -62.6% gap.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Core 5 315 and the Core Ultra 5 235HX have ECC memory support listed as false.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235HX has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Core 5 315 has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235HX provides 102.4 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5. The Core 5 315 provides 59.7 GB/s via single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX wins in every recorded benchmark category. There are no benchmark victories for the Core 5 315 in the database. This makes a use-case split one-sided, but the relative margins suggest where the Ultra 5 235HX is most decisive.

For multi-core rendering and compute workloads, the Ultra 5 235HX dominates. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 62.6% advantage, and the same margin repeats across R15 and R20. The 14-core configuration with 24 MB shared L3 provides the structural basis for this lead. The PassMark multithread test confirms this at -62.6% (40,849 vs 15,272).

For number-crunching tasks, the Ultra 5 235HX is even further ahead. Prime number finding shows the largest margin at -69%, and integer math at -67.4%. Floating point math also shows a -67.3% gap. These workloads benefit from the higher core count and the 3 MB per-core L2 cache.

For data compression and encryption, the Ultra 5 235HX shows -65.7% and -66% gaps, respectively. The 24 MB shared L3 cache likely plays a role in these memory-intensive operations. Random string sorting also shows a -65.5% gap.

The narrowest win for the Ultra 5 235HX is in PassMark single-thread, at -14.1%. This indicates that for lightly threaded tasks, the Core 5 315 is less disadvantaged. The physics test shows -54.4%, which is also a comparatively smaller gap.

The Core 5 315, despite losing all benchmarks, has attributes that may suit specific configurations. Its 15 TDP and support for LPDDR5X could fit fanless or low-power designs. Its single-channel memory bus and 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes limit expansion, but the lower power envelope is a recorded advantage. The database does not show any performance scenario where the Core 5 315 leads, so any selection would depend on power constraints rather than benchmark outcomes. The Ultra 5 235HX, with a 55 TDP and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, is the clear performance pick across all measured tests.