Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H records an average benchmark score of 33,989, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 315 scores 18,188 on average, which places it in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Which processor wins more individual benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core 5 315 does not win a single recorded test.

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

A: The largest gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 338H scores 304 versus 112 for the Core 5 315, a delta of -63.2 percent from the perspective of the slower chip.

Q: How large is the single-threaded performance difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H leads in PassMark single-thread testing with 4,180 points versus 4,021, a gap of only 3.8 percent. The Cinebench R23 single-core result shows a similar but slightly larger advantage: 2,044 versus 1,832, a 10.4 percent difference.

Q: What memory bandwidth do the two processors support?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H delivers 136.5 GB/s over a dual-channel LPDDR5X memory bus. The Core 5 315 provides 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel DDR5, LPDDR5X bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the Core 5 315 boosts to 4.40 GHz. The base clocks are 1.90 GHz and 1.50 GHz respectively.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node and are both manufactured by Intel, but they belong to different architectural families. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is part of the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation.

The core configuration differs substantially. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 338H doubles the core count to 12 cores with 12 threads, also without hyperthreading. This 2x core advantage directly explains much of the multi-threaded benchmark gap.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 315 lists L1 cache as 192 KB total, L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The Core Ultra 5 338H lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 2.5 MB per core, and L3 as 18 MB shared. The per-core L1 and L2 definitions for the Ultra part mean the aggregate L1 and L2 capacity scales with the 12-core count, while the Core 5 315 entries appear to represent total cache. The L3 difference is significant: 18 MB shared versus 6 MB shared, a 3x capacity advantage for the Ultra chip.

Memory architecture differs as well. The Core 5 315 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X only, but over a dual-channel bus, delivering 136.5 GB/s. That is a 2.29x bandwidth advantage.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 338H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The Ultra part offers a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370 graphics. No benchmark data for graphics is included in the database, so the comparison is limited to the named GPU parts.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540. Both are mobile-market parts with active production status. The Core Ultra 5 338H has no recorded launch MSRP, while the Core 5 315 carries a launch MSRP of $340.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H across all 17 head-to-head tests. The margin varies from modest in single-threaded workloads to very large in multi-threaded and math-heavy tasks.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 338H scores 16,331 versus 12,981 for the Core 5 315, a 20.5 percent advantage. This is the smallest multi-core gap in the Cinebench suite, which suggests the 12-core part scales well but faces some diminishing returns in this workload relative to other tests. The R20 multi-core result shows a larger 46.6 percent gap (10,213 versus 5,452), and the R15 multi-core shows a 47.8 percent gap (2,504 versus 1,308). The R23 test appears to be the most favorable for the Core 5 315 among the multi-core tests, likely because the workload duration or memory access patterns reduce the impact of the Ultra chip's higher bandwidth.

Single-core Cinebench results favor the Ultra part consistently. R15 single-core shows 305 versus 184, a 39.7 percent gap. R20 single-core shows 1,441 versus 769, a 46.6 percent gap. R23 single-core shows 2,044 versus 1,832, a 10.4 percent gap. The R23 single-core gap is the smallest single-core difference in the Cinebench suite, while the R15 and R20 differences are much larger. This suggests the Core 5 315 has relatively strong sustained single-core performance in newer workloads, but the Ultra chip still holds the lead.

PassMark integer math shows a 51.2 percent advantage for the Ultra part: 64,934 versus 31,690. Floating point math shows a 49.5 percent gap: 84,067 versus 42,441. Extended instructions show a 45 percent gap: 23,906 versus 13,143. These math-heavy workloads benefit greatly from the additional 6 cores and the higher memory bandwidth of the Ultra chip.

Data compression shows a 47.2 percent gap (276,539 versus 146,143), and data encryption shows a 48 percent gap (21,367 versus 11,119). Both are classic parallel workloads where the 12-core configuration has a clear structural advantage.

The find prime numbers test shows the largest relative gap of any benchmark at 63.2 percent: 304 versus 112. This test is highly sensitive to both core count and memory latency, and the Ultra part's larger L3 cache and dual-channel memory likely contribute to the outsized advantage.

Physics simulation shows a 56.9 percent gap (2,697 versus 1,163), and random string sorting shows a 48.5 percent gap (34,082 versus 17,551). The multithread test shows a 46.8 percent gap (28,717 versus 15,272).

The smallest gap in the entire suite is PassMark single-thread: 4,180 versus 4,021, a 3.8 percent difference. This is the only test where the Core 5 315 comes close to matching the Ultra part. The two chips share the same 3 nm process node and Intel foundry, so the single-thread performance difference likely comes from the 0.30 GHz boost clock advantage of the Ultra chip rather than any architectural efficiency difference at the core level.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ in the database.

| Field | Intel Core 5 315 | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | None | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 6 | 12 |

| Threads | 6 | 12 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | None listed | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc B370 |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | None |

| Part number | SAEFC | SA4REQ9EW |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 72 | 84 |

| Average benchmark score | 18,188 | 33,989 |

The two processors share the same manufacturer, process node (3 nm), foundry (Intel), ECC memory support (false for both), multiplier lock (locked for both), and market segment (Mobile). Both are active production parts.

The Verdict

The database shows a decisive performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins every recorded benchmark, and the average score difference is substantial: 33,989 versus 18,188. The Ultra part sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 315 sits in the 72nd percentile.

The Core Ultra 5 338H is the clear choice for workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 12 cores versus 6, dual-channel memory at 136.5 GB/s versus single-channel at 59.7 GB/s, and 18 MB shared L3 versus 6 MB combine to produce gaps of roughly 45 to 63 percent in parallel workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result is the most moderate gap at 20.5 percent, but the R15 and R20 multi-core tests show gaps near 47 percent.

The Core 5 315 is only competitive in single-threaded tests. The PassMark single-thread gap is 3.8 percent, and the Cinebench R23 single-core gap is 10.4 percent. These are the two closest results in the entire comparison. The Core 5 315 also has a lower TDP of 15 W versus 25 W, which may be relevant for power-constrained designs, though no battery life or thermal data is recorded in the database.

The Core 5 315 has one advantage beyond raw performance: a launch MSRP of $340, while the Ultra part has no listed MSRP. However, no price-performance analysis is possible without a price for the Ultra chip.

For users selecting between these two mobile processors, the recorded data points firmly toward the Core Ultra 5 338H for any workload that benefits from parallel execution or high memory throughput. The Core 5 315 remains viable only where single-threaded performance is the primary concern and the lower TDP is a requirement. The 84th percentile ranking of the Ultra part versus the 72nd percentile of the Core 5 315 summarizes the overall positioning: the Ultra chip is a higher-tier mobile processor, while the Core 5 315 is a more modest, lower-power option.