Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 238V Comparison

Intel Core 5 315 and Intel Core Ultra 5 238V are both active mobile processors from Intel, but the benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The Core Ultra 5 238V wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Core 5 315 takes only 2. The Ultra 5 238V also holds a higher percentile ranking (75th vs. 72nd) and a higher average benchmark score (21981 vs. 18188). However, the Core 5 315 posts a narrow single-thread win in Passmark tests, indicating a specific strength that may matter for certain workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V dominates across nearly every measured workload category. It wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) and all three single-core Cinebench tests. In Passmark, it wins data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithreaded performance, physics, and random string sorting. The largest margins come in prime number finding (35.6% ahead) and physics (24.8% ahead), suggesting a substantial advantage in compute-heavy and simulation-style tasks.

The Intel Core 5 315 wins only the Passmark single-thread test with a score of 4021 against 3890, a 3.4% margin. This is the sole area where the Core 5 315 leads, and it indicates a modest advantage in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive operations. Across all other recorded benchmarks, the Core Ultra 5 238V holds a consistent lead, with deltas ranging from 14.5% to 35.6%.

The data shows a clear split: the Core Ultra 5 238V is the choice for multi-threaded productivity, content creation, and any workload that scales across cores. The Core 5 315 offers a small edge in single-thread Passmark performance, which may translate to faster response in specific applications that rely on one primary thread.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V is the stronger processor in the database’s recorded measurements. Its wins span all Cinebench versions and the majority of Passmark tests, and its average benchmark score of 21981 places it 20.8% above the Core 5 315’s 18188. The Ultra 5 238V also sits at the 75th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 315.

For users prioritizing multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, or physics simulations, the Core Ultra 5 238V is the clear selection based on the recorded data. Its 8 cores and 8 threads, combined with a 4.70 GHz boost clock, deliver consistently higher scores in every multi-threaded test. The Core 5 315, with 6 cores and 6 threads and a 4.40 GHz boost clock, cannot match that throughput.

The Core 5 315 remains viable only for scenarios where the 3.4% Passmark single-thread advantage matters more than the multi-core deficits. In every other recorded benchmark, the Core Ultra 5 238V leads, often by double-digit percentages. The verdict from the data is unambiguous: the Core Ultra 5 238V is the better overall processor, and the Core 5 315’s single-thread win does not offset its losses elsewhere.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V comes in Passmark’s find prime numbers test, where it scores 174 against the Core 5 315’s 112, a 35.6% advantage. Physics follows closely, with the Ultra 5 238V scoring 1546 versus 1163, a 24.8% lead. Floating point math shows a 20.2% margin (53160 vs. 42441), and random string sorting shows an 18.7% gap (21585 vs. 17551). Integer math is 18.5% higher (38889 vs. 31690), and multithreaded Passmark is 17% higher (18407 vs. 15272).

The Cinebench results are consistent across all versions. In R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 238V scores 15645 against 12981, a 17% difference. R20 multi-core shows 6570 versus 5452, also 17%. R15 multi-core shows 1576 versus 1308, again 17%. Single-core Cinebench tests show the same 17% pattern: R23 at 2208 vs. 1832, R20 at 927 vs. 769, and R15 at 222 vs. 184. Data compression shows a 17.2% edge (176532 vs. 146143), data encryption 14.9% (13072 vs. 11119), and extended instructions 14.5% (15377 vs. 13143).

The only reverse result is Passmark single-thread, where the Core 5 315 scores 4021 against 3890, a 3.4% margin. This appears in both the single_thread and singlethread test entries, confirming the result. The Core 5 315’s two wins are both this same test, while the Core Ultra 5 238V accumulates 15 wins across all other benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V scores 2208 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Core 5 315 scores 1832. The Ultra 5 238V leads by 17%.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 315 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Core 5 315 wins the Passmark single-thread test with a score of 4021, compared to 3890 for the Core Ultra 5 238V, a 3.4% margin.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 5 238V has an average benchmark score of 21981, while the Core 5 315 has 18188. The Ultra 5 238V is roughly 20.8% higher.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core Cinebench R20?

A: The Core Ultra 5 238V scores 6570 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, while the Core 5 315 scores 5452. The Ultra 5 238V leads by 17%.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 238V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 5 238V ranks at the 75th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 315 ranks at the 72nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: the Core 5 315 is manufactured by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 238V is manufactured by TSMC.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. The Core 5 315 has a 192 KB L1 cache, a 2.5 MB L2 cache, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 238V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and a larger 8 MB shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 5 238V scales with its 8 cores, giving it substantially more total L2 capacity.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 238V lists memory support as dependent on the motherboard, with a dual-channel memory bus and no recorded bandwidth figure. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 5 315 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 238V uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are different. The Core 5 315 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 238V includes Arc 130V graphics. Both lack ECC memory support and unlocked multipliers. The socket types are not shared: the Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra 5 238V uses Intel BGA 2833.

Specification Differences

The Core Ultra 5 238V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The base clock is 2.10 GHz for the Ultra 5 238V versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 315. Boost clocks also favor the Ultra 5 238V at 4.70 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. Thermal design power is 17 watts for the Ultra 5 238V and 15 watts for the Core 5 315.

The Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340, while the Core Ultra 5 238V has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The memory bus width differs, with the Core 5 315 using single-channel and the Core Ultra 5 238V using dual-channel. The L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the Core 5 315 and 8 MB shared on the Core Ultra 5 238V. The release dates are distinct: the Core 5 315 released on 2026-04-15, and the Core Ultra 5 238V released on 2024-09-23.

The part numbers differ (SAEFC for the Core 5 315, SRPN5SRPN4 for the Core Ultra 5 238V), and the foundry is Intel for the former and TSMC for the latter. The Core Ultra 5 238V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, while the Core 5 315 has no recorded series. Both are mobile market segments, active production status, and neither supports ECC memory or has an unlocked multiplier.