Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 315 compare to the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL in core count?

A: The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL has 16 cores and 22 threads. The Ultra 7 also carries a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.40 GHz for the Core 5.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Core 5 315 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses a 7 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 7 155HL has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 6 MB of shared L3 cache on the Core 5 315. The Ultra 7 also has per-core L2 cache of 2 MB, whereas the Core 5 has 2.5 MB of total L2.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 315 delivers 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth over a single-channel memory bus, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL delivers 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the market segment and release date for each?

A: The Core 5 315 is a mobile processor released on April 15, 2026, and the Core Ultra 7 155HL is a desktop processor released on April 7, 2024. Both are currently active in production.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: No, both the Core 5 315 and the Core Ultra 7 155HL do not support ECC memory. Both also have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 315 and the Core Ultra 7 155HL are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, a 3 nm design, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses the Meteor Lake-PS codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 1, built on a 7 nm process. This process gap alone suggests a significant difference in transistor density and power characteristics, which is reflected in the TDP: 15 W for the Core 5 315 versus 45 W for the Ultra 7 155HL.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Core 5 315 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor with no hyperthreading, whereas the Ultra 7 155HL offers 16 cores and 22 threads, indicating a hybrid architecture with performance and efficiency cores. The thread count delta (6 versus 22) points to a much heavier multitasking capability for the Ultra 7.

Cache hierarchies also tell different stories. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 has L1 cache of 112 KB per core, L2 of 2 MB per core, and a much larger 24 MB shared L3. The per-core L2 design on the Ultra 7 gives it more flexible cache allocation under varied workloads, while the Core 5's smaller total cache suits its lower core count.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 7 155HL supports DDR5 (depending on motherboard), uses a dual-channel bus, and reaches 89.6 GB/s. The Ultra 7's higher bandwidth is consistent with its desktop positioning and higher TDP.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 7 155HL uses Arc Xe-LPG with 128 execution units. The Ultra 7's graphics solution is substantially larger, which aligns with its higher power budget.

PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 315 has Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 155HL has Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The extra lanes on the Ultra 7 provide more headroom for discrete GPUs or NVMe storage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Core 5 315 and the Core Ultra 7 155HL. The Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database at all, with an average benchmark score of zero. This absence of data means a direct numerical comparison of raw performance is not possible from the recorded measurements.

For the Core 5 315, the available benchmark data shows a multicore Cinebench R23 score of 12,981 and a single-core score of 1,832. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5,452 multicore and 769 single-core. Cinebench R15 shows 1,308 multicore and 184 single-core. The Passmark suite records a multithread score of 15,272, a single-thread score of 4,021, integer math at 31,690, floating point math at 42,441, and data compression at 146,143.

Since the Ultra 7 155HL lacks any recorded scores, the data cannot confirm which processor wins in any specific workload. However, the Core 5 315's percentile ranking is 72 among all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 155HL sits at the 50th percentile. The Core 5 315 also holds an average benchmark score of 18,188, whereas the Ultra 7 has none.

The nearest rivals for the Core 5 315 provide context for its standing. It scores within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (18,176 average), the Intel Core i7-1365U (18,177), and the Intel Core i7-9700 (18,180). It also matches the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18,189, a 0% delta. These comparisons show the Core 5 315 performing in line with established mid-range processors from both AMD and Intel.

The lack of benchmark data for the Ultra 7 155HL is itself a notable finding. A processor with a 50th percentile ranking and no average score cannot be positioned against the Core 5 315 without additional measurements. The database records no wins for either processor in head-to-head tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification field. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra 7 155HL has 16 cores and 22 threads. Base clocks are close: 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 versus 1.40 GHz for the Ultra 7. Boost clocks favor the Ultra 7 at 4.80 GHz versus 4.40 GHz.

TDP is a major divider: 15 W for the Core 5 315 and 45 W for the Ultra 7 155HL. The socket types differ completely, with the Core 5 using Intel BGA 1516 and the Ultra 7 using Intel Socket 1851. The process nodes are 3 nm for the Core 5 and 7 nm for the Ultra 7.

Cache allocations diverge as described earlier: 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3 for the Core 5; 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3 for the Ultra 7. Memory bus widths differ (single-channel versus dual-channel), and memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 7 at 89.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s.

PCIe lane counts differ (6 versus 8), and the integrated graphics solutions are entirely different (Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores versus Arc Xe-LPG 128EU). Market segments also differ: the Core 5 315 is mobile, while the Ultra 7 155HL is desktop. Release dates are nearly two years apart, with the Core 5 launching on April 15, 2026, and the Ultra 7 on April 7, 2024.

The launch MSRP for the Core 5 315 is $340, and for the Core Ultra 7 155HL it is $438. The part numbers are SAEFC for the Core 5 and SRN2Z for the Ultra 7.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data does not support assigning benchmark wins to either processor, as the Ultra 7 155HL has no scores in the database. The analysis must therefore rely on specification-level differences to infer workload suitability.

The Core 5 315 wins on efficiency metrics. Its 15 W TDP, 3 nm process, and mobile market segment indicate suitability for power-constrained environments. The single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for light multitasking and everyday productivity workloads. Its 72nd percentile ranking with an average score of 18,188 places it competitively among mid-range mobile processors, matching the performance of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U and the Intel Core i7-1365U within 0.1%. For thin-and-light laptops or fanless designs, the Core 5 315 holds a clear advantage in power envelope and thermal footprint.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL wins on raw capability. Its 16 cores, 22 threads, and 4.80 GHz boost clock provide substantial headroom for parallel workloads such as rendering, compilation, or virtual machine hosting. The 24 MB shared L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth support data-heavy applications. The Arc Xe-LPG 128EU integrated graphics offer significantly more GPU compute than the 2 Xe cores on the Core 5. Its 45 W TDP and desktop segment position it for systems where power draw is less constrained.

The socket difference reinforces the use-case split. The Core 5 315's BGA 1516 socket is a soldered mobile platform, while the Ultra 7 155HL's Socket 1851 provides a desktop mounting solution. The Ultra 7 also offers more PCIe lanes (8 versus 6), which benefits systems with multiple expansion devices.

The data also shows the Core 5 315 holds a higher percentile ranking (72 versus 50) despite its lower core count, suggesting that for the average CPU workload, it outperforms the Ultra 7. However, that percentile is based on the Core 5's complete benchmark suite, whereas the Ultra 7's ranking appears without supporting scores. The absence of data for the Ultra 7 makes a definitive use-case verdict impossible. The specifications alone, however, point to the Core 5 315 for efficient, mobile computing and the Ultra 7 155HL for desktop workloads that demand maximum core counts, cache capacity, and memory bandwidth.