Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a complete sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with no victories for the Intel Core 5 315. The most significant gaps appear in multi-threaded workloads, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus often more than triples the Core 5 315's output.

Starting with Cinebench, the pattern is consistent and stark. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4305 against 1308 for the Core 5 315, a delta of -69.6% from the Core 5 315's perspective. The R15 single-core test shows 607 versus 184, also a -69.7% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 17941 versus 5452 (-69.6%), and single-core is 2532 versus 769 (-69.6%). Cinebench R23 follows the same trajectory: multi-core scores 42718 versus 12981, and single-core scores 6030 versus 1832. Every single Cinebench result lands within a narrow band of roughly -69.3% to -69.7%, indicating that the performance ratio between these two chips is remarkably consistent across rendering workloads.

The Passmark suite reveals a wider spread of deltas, ranging from -63.5% to -75.2%. The smallest gap in the entire comparison appears in Passmark single-thread tests. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4698, while the Core 5 315 scores 4021, a delta of only -14.4%. This is the closest the Core 5 315 comes to its rival in any metric, and it suggests that the single-core architectural gap, while still decisive, is far narrower than the multi-core chasm.

The largest deltas appear in compute-heavy Passmark workloads. Passmark find prime numbers shows 452 versus 112, a -75.2% delta. Passmark integer math records 123030 versus 31690 (-74.2%). Passmark random string sorting delivers 67209 versus 17551 (-73.9%). Passmark data compression shows 553155 versus 146143 (-73.6%). Passmark floating point math delivers 159824 versus 42441 (-73.4%). Passmark data encryption records 41292 versus 11119 (-73.1%). Passmark extended instructions shows 42880 versus 13143 (-69.3%). Passmark multithread delivers 50146 versus 15272 (-69.5%). Passmark physics records 3183 versus 1163 (-63.5%), the second-smallest delta after single-thread.

The average benchmark score tells the same story at a glance. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus holds an average score of 66159, while the Core 5 315 averages 18188. This places the Ultra 5 250KF Plus in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, whereas the Core 5 315 sits in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus include the Intel Core 9 273PQE (0.1% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (0.4% ahead), the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (1% behind), and the AMD EPYC 4465P (1.1% behind). The Core 5 315, by contrast, sits near the AMD EPYC 9274F (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-9700 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-1365U (0.1% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (0.1% behind). The delta between the two chips' average scores is roughly 3.6x, which aligns with the multi-core benchmark deltas observed across the suite.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename from the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Both chips are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. Intel fabricates the Core 5 315 in-house, while TSMC produces the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

The core counts diverge sharply. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, also without hyper-threading. This 3x core advantage directly explains the multi-core benchmark dominance. Base clocks also differ: the Core 5 315 runs at 1.50 GHz, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus runs at 4.20 GHz. Boost clocks reach 4.40 GHz on the Core 5 315 and 5.30 GHz on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Cache hierarchies reflect the core count disparity. The Core 5 315 carries 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus lists 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus also has documented transistor and die size figures: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No such figures appear for the Core 5 315.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 315 does not. PCIe connectivity favors the Ultra 5 250KF Plus with Gen 5 and 20 CPU lanes, versus Gen 4 and 6 CPU lanes on the Core 5 315.

Integrated graphics and market positioning separate the two further. The Core 5 315 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, targeting the mobile segment. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics ("N/A") and targets the desktop segment. The Core 5 315 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 315 but unlocked on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. Release dates also differ: the Core 5 315 launched on April 15, 2026, and the Ultra 5 250KF Plus on March 10, 2026. Both parts remain in active production.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus outperforms the Intel Core 5 315 in every single benchmark in the database. The average benchmark score of 66159 versus 18188, combined with the 93rd versus 72nd percentile ranking, indicates a processor in a different performance class entirely.

Multi-threaded workloads show the largest separation. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers roughly 3.3x the multi-core Cinebench scores and 3.3x the Passmark multithread score. This aligns with its 18 cores versus 6 cores and its 4.20 GHz base clock versus 1.50 GHz. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus also holds advantages in memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s), PCIe generation (Gen 5 versus Gen 4), and ECC support.

The closest contest appears in single-thread Passmark scores, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by only 14.4%. The Core 5 315's Xe3 integrated graphics give it a feature the desktop Ultra 5 250KF Plus lacks entirely, and its mobile form factor with a 15 W TDP positions it for low-power systems. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with a 125 W TDP and unlocked multiplier, targets high-performance desktop builds.

For systems requiring maximum compute throughput, rendering speed, or data processing, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the clear choice from the data. For mobile or low-power applications where integrated graphics matter and the single-thread gap is less punishing, the Core 5 315 has a distinct role. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 5 315 wins on raw performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. Core and thread counts lead the list: 6 cores and 6 threads versus 18 cores and 18 threads. Base clocks differ by 2.70 GHz (1.50 GHz versus 4.20 GHz), and boost clocks differ by 0.90 GHz (4.40 GHz versus 5.30 GHz). TDP ratings separate them by 110 W (15 W versus 125 W).

Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 315, Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The codenames differ (Wildcat Lake versus Arrow Lake Refresh), as do the generations (Core 5 versus Ultra 5). The process node is the same at 3 nm, but the foundry differs (Intel versus TSMC). Transistor count and die size are only recorded for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus (17,800 million and 243 mm²).

Cache configurations differ in both size and description. The Core 5 315 lists 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus lists 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. Memory support diverges: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 5 315 versus DDR5 only for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. Memory bus width differs (single-channel versus dual-channel), as does bandwidth (59.7 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s). ECC memory support exists only on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

PCIe capabilities favor the Ultra 5 250KF Plus with Gen 5 and 20 lanes versus Gen 4 and 6 lanes. Integrated graphics exist only on the Core 5 315 (Intel Xe3 Graphics, 2 Xe cores). Market segments differ (Mobile versus Desktop). The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 315 and unlocked on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. Release dates differ by about one month, and launch MSRP values are $340 for the Core 5 315 and $184 for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, compared to 6 cores and 6 threads on the Intel Core 5 315.

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

A: The largest delta appears in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 452 versus 112 for the Core 5 315, a -75.2% gap from the Core 5 315's perspective.

Q: Which chip wins in single-threaded Passmark performance?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins with a score of 4698 versus 4021 for the Core 5 315, a delta of -14.4%. This is the smallest performance gap in the entire benchmark suite.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 315 does not.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics.

Q: Are the two processors built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use a 3 nm process node. However, Intel fabricates the Core 5 315 in-house, while TSMC produces the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.