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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T across all 17 benchmark comparisons, with zero wins for the Intel Core 5 315. The most decisive margins appear in heavily multithreaded workloads, where the Ultra 5 235T's additional cores and higher power envelope produce substantial leads.

In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 5 235T scores 26,232 versus 12,981 for the Core 5 315, a 50.5% advantage. The same 50.5% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multicore (11,017 vs 5,452) and Cinebench R15 multicore (2,644 vs 1,308). These consistent margins across Cinebench versions indicate a uniform scaling advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

Single-core performance tells a similar story. The Ultra 5 235T leads by 50.7% in Cinebench R15 single-core (373 vs 184), by 50.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core (1,555 vs 769), and by 50.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core (3,703 vs 1,832). The PassMark single-thread test shows a narrower gap of 7.3% (4,339 vs 4,021), suggesting that the Cinebench single-core tests are more sensitive to the frequency and architectural differences between the two parts.

The largest percentage deltas appear in PassMark integer math and prime number finding. The Ultra 5 235T scores 84,244 in integer math versus 31,690 for the Core 5 315, a 62.4% advantage. In the prime numbers test, the Ultra 5 235T scores 318 versus 112, a 64.8% lead. Floating-point math shows a 60.2% gap (106,546 vs 42,441). These results indicate that the Ultra 5 235T's execution resources scale strongly with compute-heavy instruction streams.

Data compression and encryption workloads also favor the Ultra 5 235T decisively. Compression scores 295,100 versus 146,143, a 50.5% lead. Encryption scores 23,457 versus 11,119, a 52.6% advantage. The extended instructions test shows a smaller 43.4% gap (23,212 vs 13,143), still a clear win but the narrowest among the PassMark CPU suite tests.

The multi-thread PassMark score reaches 30,918 for the Ultra 5 235T versus 15,272 for the Core 5 315, a 50.6% difference. Physics simulation shows a 46.1% gap (2,157 vs 1,163), and random string sorting a 50.4% gap (35,377 vs 17,551). The average benchmark scores reflect this overall pattern: 38,561 for the Ultra 5 235T versus 18,188 for the Core 5 315.

Percentile rankings place the Ultra 5 235T at the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 315 sits at the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 235T include the Intel Core i5-14500 at a 0.1% delta, the Intel Xeon w3-2525 at 0.4%, the Intel Core 9 270H at 0.6%, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H at 0.7%. The Core 5 315's nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 9274F at a 0% delta, the Intel Core i7-9700 at 0%, the Intel Core i7-1365U at 0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 0.1%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data directs a clear verdict: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T is the superior processor in every measured category. Its 86th percentile ranking versus 72nd for the Core 5 315, combined with an average score of 38,561 versus 18,188, establishes a wide performance gap that spans both single-threaded and multithreaded workloads.

The only close comparison in the entire dataset is the PassMark single-thread test, where the Ultra 5 235T leads by just 7.3%. This narrow margin suggests that for purely single-threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, the two processors are closer in capability. However, even that test records a win for the Ultra 5 235T, so the Core 5 315 cannot claim a single benchmark victory.

The Ultra 5 235T's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14500 (0.1% delta), Intel Xeon w3-2525 (0.4%), Intel Core 9 270H (0.6%), and Intel Core Ultra 9 285H (0.7%). The Core 5 315's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F (0%), Intel Core i7-9700 (0%), Intel Core i7-1365U (0.1%), and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (0.1%). These groupings place the Ultra 5 235T in a higher performance tier entirely.

The launch MSRP for the Ultra 5 235T is $247, while the Core 5 315 carries a launch MSRP of $340. The database records no relationship between price and performance beyond these stated figures.

The data indicates that the Core 5 315 belongs to a performance class represented by the Core i7-9700 and Ryzen 7 5700U, while the Ultra 5 235T competes with the Core i5-14500 and Xeon w3-2525. The 50% or greater margins in most tests confirm that the Ultra 5 235T is not merely ahead but operates in a different performance bracket.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge substantially in their underlying designs. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, while the Ultra 5 235T uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename and sits in the Core Ultra Series 2 generation.

Both processors are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. Intel produces the Core 5 315, while TSMC manufactures the Ultra 5 235T. The Ultra 5 235T carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 5 315 lists no transistor or die size data in the records.

Core counts show a significant split. The Core 5 315 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra 5 235T provides 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, as thread counts equal core counts in both cases.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 5 235T on both ends. The Core 5 315 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Ultra 5 235T has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The thermal design power also differs substantially: 15 watts for the Core 5 315 versus 65 watts for the Ultra 5 235T.

Cache hierarchies differ in both capacity and organization. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 235T has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 5 235T represents a substantial increase in low-latency storage.

Memory support and bandwidth favor the Ultra 5 235T. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 5 235T supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 235T provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Ultra 5 235T both a newer PCIe generation and more available lanes.

Integrated graphics use different architectures. The Core 5 315 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 5 235T includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units. The sockets differ as well: the Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra 5 235T uses Intel Socket 1851.

The market segments differ. The Core 5 315 is a mobile processor, while the Ultra 5 235T is a desktop processor. Release dates also differ: the Core 5 315 has a release date of 2026-04-15, while the Ultra 5 235T has a release date of 2025-01-06. Both processors are marked as active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Both processors have equal core and thread counts, meaning neither uses hyper-threading.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra 5 235T scores 26,232 in Cinebench R23 multicore versus 12,981 for the Core 5 315, a 50.5% advantage. In single-core, the Ultra 5 235T scores 3,703 versus 1,832, also a 50.5% lead.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two?

A: The Core 5 315 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Ultra 5 235T has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth specifications compare?

A: The Core 5 315 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and supports DDR5 plus LPDDR5X. The Ultra 5 235T uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and supports DDR5 only.

Q: Which processor has the higher percentile ranking?

A: The Ultra 5 235T ranks at the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 315 ranks at the 72nd percentile.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Core 5 315 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Ultra 5 235T has a TDP of 65 watts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database, so the use-case split depends on the scale of the advantage rather than the direction of the result.

For multithreaded rendering and content creation workloads, the Ultra 5 235T's 50.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and 50.6% lead in PassMark multithread make it the clear choice. The 60.2% advantage in floating-point math and 62.4% advantage in integer math further confirm its dominance in compute-heavy tasks such as scientific simulation, financial modeling, and data processing.

For data compression and encryption tasks, the Ultra 5 235T leads by 50.5% and 52.6% respectively. These workloads benefit from the combination of 14 cores, higher per-core L2 cache at 3 MB per core, and the dual-channel memory interface delivering 102.4 GB/s.

The narrowest gap appears in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Ultra 5 235T leads by only 7.3%. This test measures the responsiveness of a single execution thread, and the 4,339 versus 4,021 scores indicate that the Core 5 315 is comparatively competitive in this specific area. However, even here the Ultra 5 235T wins.

The Core 5 315's lower TDP of 15 watts versus 65 watts for the Ultra 5 235T suggests a thermal efficiency advantage, though the database does not record power consumption measurements. Its mobile market segment and single-channel memory bus indicate a design targeting compact, low-power systems rather than maximum throughput.

For users whose workloads involve the extended instructions test, the Ultra 5 235T leads by 43.4%, the smallest margin among the PassMark CPU tests. This suggests the Core 5 315 retains relatively stronger SIMD or specialized instruction processing relative to its other capabilities.

In physics simulation, the Ultra 5 235T leads by 46.1%, and in random string sorting by 50.4%. Both results reinforce the overall pattern: the Ultra 5 235T is consistently ahead, with the Core 5 315 showing its best relative performance in single-threaded and specialized instruction workloads, and its worst in integer-heavy and prime-number computations.

The prime number finding test shows the largest absolute gap at 64.8%, making it the clearest indicator of raw arithmetic throughput differences. The Core 5 315's 112 score versus the Ultra 5 235T's 318 score reflects the combined effect of more cores, higher clocks, larger caches, and a wider memory bus.

The data supports a straightforward split: the Ultra 5 235T for any scenario where performance is the primary requirement, and the Core 5 315 for scenarios constrained by power limits or mobile form factors, where its 15-watt TDP and compact BGA 1516 socket offer design flexibility despite the performance deficit.