Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

The Intel Core 5 315 and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX occupy different tiers of Intel’s mobile lineup, and the benchmark data reflects a substantial performance gap. The Core Ultra 7 255HX wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons recorded in the database, with margins ranging from 11.9% to 75.1%. The Core 5 315, a 6-core part, is positioned for efficiency-focused designs, while the 20-core Ultra 7 255HX targets high-performance mobile workstations. The following analysis breaks down the recorded measurements, architectural differences, and use-case implications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories for the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX appear in multi-threaded and math-intensive workloads. In PassMark integer math, the Ultra 7 scores 127,126 versus 31,690 for the Core 5 315, a delta of 75.1%. Floating point math shows a similar pattern: 160,624 versus 42,441, a 73.6% advantage. These results indicate that the Ultra 7’s larger core count and higher power envelope translate directly into raw compute throughput.

Cinebench multi-core results reinforce this trend. The Ultra 7 255HX scores 32,612 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 5 315 manages 12,981, a 60.2% gap. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the margin is 68.3%, with scores of 17,187 and 5,452 respectively. The older Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the largest relative difference: 4,916 versus 1,308, a 73.4% deficit for the Core 5 315.

Single-thread performance is closer, though the Ultra 7 still leads in every recorded test. PassMark single-thread shows 4,562 versus 4,021, an 11.9% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core narrows the difference further: 2,163 versus 1,832, a 15.3% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core shows the Ultra 7 at 327 versus 184, a 43.7% lead. The single-thread results suggest the Core 5 315 benefits from a competitive per-core design, but it cannot match the Ultra 7’s higher boost clock.

Data-oriented workloads follow the same hierarchy. PassMark data compression favors the Ultra 7 255HX with 515,143 versus 146,143, a 71.6% advantage. Data encryption shows 39,499 versus 11,119, a 71.8% gap. Extended instructions score 41,247 against 13,143, a 68.1% difference. Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive test, gives the Ultra 7 a 72% lead with 62,591 versus 17,551.

The remaining PassMark tests show consistent margins. Multithread score favors the Ultra 7 at 48,234 versus 15,272, a 68.3% gap. Physics simulation scores 2,926 versus 1,163, a 60.3% difference. Prime number finding delivers 400 versus 112, a 72% lead. Every recorded benchmark, regardless of workload type, lands in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX in multi-core workloads?

A: The Ultra 7 leads by 60.2% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (32,612 versus 12,981) and by 68.3% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (17,187 versus 5,452). The largest multi-core margin is 73.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Ultra 7 255HX wins PassMark single-thread with 4,562 versus 4,021, an 11.9% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 15.3% gap, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 43.7% gap.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX records an average benchmark score of 62,738, compared to 18,188 for the Core 5 315. The Ultra 7 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 315 sits in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Are there any workloads where the Core 5 315 wins?

A: No. The database records 17 head-to-head benchmark results, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins all 17. The Core 5 315 has zero wins in the recorded data.

Q: How do the processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 7 255HX uses a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 315 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins every recorded benchmark, so the practical distinction lies in workload intensity and performance headroom. Multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and scientific math all favor the Ultra 7 by margins of 60% to 75%. The 20-core configuration and dual-channel memory bandwidth give it a decisive advantage in tasks that scale with core count and memory throughput.

The Core 5 315 shows its strongest relative performance in single-thread tests. The 11.9% gap in PassMark single-thread and the 15.3% gap in Cinebench R23 single-core indicate that its per-core architecture is competitive. For workloads that rely primarily on single-thread speed, the Core 5 315 narrows the gap considerably, though it does not overtake the Ultra 7 in any recorded test.

The efficiency profile also differs. The Core 5 315 has a 15 W TDP, while the Ultra 7 255HX has a 55 W TDP. The Core 5 315 uses a single-channel memory bus, which limits memory bandwidth to 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 7’s dual-channel bus reaches 102.4 GB/s. These specifications suggest the Core 5 315 suits thermally constrained designs, while the Ultra 7 targets systems that can sustain higher power draw for maximum throughput.

The average benchmark scores place the two processors in different performance classes. The Ultra 7’s 62,738 average score places it near chips like the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 and Intel Core i7-13790F. The Core 5 315’s 18,188 average score aligns with the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700. The percentile ranks confirm the separation: 93rd for the Ultra 7 versus 72nd for the Core 5 315.

Specification Differences

The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket, while the Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516. The Ultra 7 has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 5 315 does not. Base clocks differ at 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7 and 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 315. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz and 4.40 GHz respectively.

Memory support differs in both type and width. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus. The Ultra 7 supports DDR5 only, but uses a dual-channel bus. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 315 and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7.

PCIe connectivity also diverges. The Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 7 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 7 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU.

The release dates are reversed from what the naming might suggest. The Core Ultra 7 255HX launched in January 2025, while the Core 5 315 launched in April 2026. The Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340. The Ultra 7 255HX has no recorded MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 3 nm process node but use different foundries. The Core 5 315 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX is fabricated by TSMC. The architecture names differ: the Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, and the Ultra 7 255HX uses Arrow Lake-HX.

Core counts create the largest architectural divide. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading. The Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. Cache hierarchies reflect this difference. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 255HX has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Ultra 7 255HX also carries a much larger physical package with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 315 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. The Ultra 7’s higher TDP of 55 W versus 15 W for the Core 5 315 aligns with its larger core count and higher clock speeds.

Both processors target the mobile market segment, and both are active in production. Neither supports ECC memory. The Ultra 7 255HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, while the Core 5 315 has no recorded series designation. The generation fields confirm the split: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-HX).