Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits into two distinct profiles. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H dominates the multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads, winning 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. Its advantages range from roughly 46% to over 62% depending on the specific test. The Intel Core 5 315 wins exactly two tests, and both are the same PassMark single-thread measurement. The margin there is extremely narrow at 0.2%, which makes the Core 5 315 effectively tied with the Ultra 5 336H in raw single-core throughput.

The use-case split is clear. The Core Ultra 5 336H is the processor for rendering, scientific computing, encryption, compression, and any workload that scales with core count and memory bandwidth. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23991 versus 12981 shows a 45.9% lead. The PassMark physics test shows an even larger gap at 56.6%, with scores of 2682 versus 1163. The Core 5 315, by contrast, only matches the Ultra 5 336H in light single-threaded work, where the 4021 versus 4013 scores indicate near-identical performance. For applications that are not heavily threaded, the two processors will feel comparable.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Core 5 315 sits at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core Ultra 5 336H reaches the 84th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core 5 315 is 18188, compared to 34485 for the Ultra 5 336H. That is a 89.6% higher average score for the Ultra part, driven almost entirely by multi-core performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 edges out the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H in the PassMark single-thread test by 0.2%, scoring 4021 versus 4013. This is effectively a tie within measurement noise.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H leads by 45.9% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (23991 versus 12981) and by 46.5% in PassMark multithread (28545 versus 15272). The gap widens to 62.5% in the PassMark find prime numbers test.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses hyperthreading, so threads equal cores in both cases.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H has both a higher base clock (1.90 GHz versus 1.50 GHz) and a higher boost clock (4.60 GHz versus 4.40 GHz).

Q: How do the thermal design power ratings compare?

A: The Core 5 315 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has a TDP of 25 watts. The higher power envelope of the Ultra part supports its additional cores and higher clock speeds.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Core 5 315 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, which is nearly double.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 336H wins every Cinebench test by a consistent margin. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 2418 versus 1308, a 45.9% difference. The single-core R15 test shows 341 versus 184, a 46% difference. R20 multi-core delivers 10076 versus 5452, again 45.9%. R20 single-core shows 1422 versus 769, a 45.9% gap. R23 multi-core delivers 23991 versus 12981, and R23 single-core delivers 3387 versus 1832. Both R23 gaps sit at 45.9%.

The PassMark suite shows a wider range of margins. Data compression favors the Ultra part by 47.9%, with scores of 280340 versus 146143. Data encryption shows a 47.8% lead, 21291 versus 11119. Extended instructions give a 46.4% advantage, 24542 versus 13143. The find prime numbers test shows the largest gap at 62.5%, with 299 versus 112. Floating point math delivers a 48.5% lead, 82415 versus 42441. Integer math shows a 48.9% advantage, 62070 versus 31690. The multithread test gives a 46.5% lead, 28545 versus 15272. Physics shows a substantial 56.6% gap, 2682 versus 1163. Random string sorting favors the Ultra part by 49%, 34402 versus 17551.

The only two wins for the Core 5 315 come from the PassMark single-thread test, recorded under two slightly different test names. Both show 4021 for the Core 5 315 and 4013 for the Core Ultra 5 336H, a 0.2% margin. This is the narrowest possible victory and indicates that single-core architecture efficiency is essentially identical between the two parts.

The pattern across all tests is consistent. The Ultra 5 336H does not merely win; it wins by roughly 46% to 49% in most workloads, with physics and prime number finding showing even larger gaps. The single-thread test is the sole exception, where the Core 5 315 holds a razor-thin edge.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The Core 5 315 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540. The core counts differ substantially: 6 versus 16. Thread counts mirror core counts at 6 and 16. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.40 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP ratings are 15 watts versus 25 watts.

Memory support is nominally the same (DDR5 and LPDDR5X), but the bus configuration differs. The Core 5 315 is single-channel with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 336H is dual-channel with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe support also differs: the Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Cache organization differs significantly. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 336H lists 192 KB per core for L1, 2.5 MB per core for L2, and 18 MB of shared L3. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 315 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has Intel Xe3 Graphics without a specified Xe core count.

The release dates differ. The Core Ultra 5 336H launched earlier on 2026-01-04, while the Core 5 315 launched on 2026-04-15. The Core 5 315 has a recorded launch MSRP of $340. The Core Ultra 5 336H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both are active production parts, and both have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 315 belongs to the Wildcat Lake codename family, listed as Core 5 (Wildcat Lake). The Core Ultra 5 336H belongs to the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation under the Core Ultra Series 3 branding. Both processors use a 3 nm process node and are manufactured by Intel.

The architecture differences manifest primarily in core organization. The Core Ultra 5 336H packs 16 cores into the same process node, enabled by a different design philosophy focused on density and multi-thread throughput. The Core 5 315 uses 6 cores in a configuration that emphasizes lower power consumption (15 watts versus 25 watts) while maintaining competitive single-thread performance.

Cache hierarchy differences point to divergent design goals. The Core 5 315 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 cache listing for the Ultra part (2.5 MB per core) suggests a larger total L2 footprint across 16 cores compared to the aggregate L2 of the Core 5 315.

The integrated graphics solution differs in configuration. The Core 5 315 explicitly lists 2 Xe cores in its Xe3 Graphics. The Core Ultra 5 336H lists Xe3 Graphics without a core count, but the larger overall die and higher TDP suggest a more capable graphics unit. The memory bandwidth difference, 115.2 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s, also feeds into graphics performance for memory-intensive workloads.

Both processors support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, and neither supports ECC memory. The PCIe generation difference (Gen 4 versus Gen 5) and lane count difference (6 versus 12) indicate that the Core Ultra 5 336H is positioned for platforms with more expansion and I/O demands. The Core 5 315 targets more constrained mobile designs where power and footprint take priority.

The production status for both is active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SAEFC for the Core 5 315 and SA4RD for the Core Ultra 5 336H. The architecture differences ultimately explain the benchmark results: the 16-core Panther Lake design delivers roughly double the multi-core throughput of the 6-core Wildcat Lake design, while single-core performance remains effectively identical.