Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 258V Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two mobile processors is heavily lopsided. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V claims 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head wins, while the Intel Core 5 315 manages only 3. That margin alone establishes the Ultra 7 as the dominant performer in most measured workloads.

The Core Ultra 7 258V wins every Cinebench test except for Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it loses decisively. It also sweeps all PassMark tests except for single-thread scores, where the Core 5 315 edges ahead by a razor-thin margin. The Core 5 315's victories are narrow: a 0.1% lead in PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread (identical tests recorded twice), plus a substantial 26% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Looking at the use-case split, the Core Ultra 7 258V is the clear choice for sustained multi-threaded work. It leads by 19.1% in Cinebench R20 multi-core and by 19.1% in PassMark multi-thread. For floating-point math, integer math, and physics calculations, the Ultra 7 leads by margins between 25.7% and 26.1%. The Core 5 315's Cinebench R23 multi-core win (12981 versus 10301) is the single largest victory in either direction, suggesting a specific workload scenario where the Wildcat Lake chip pulls ahead.

For single-core performance, the two chips are nearly identical in PassMark terms, with the Core 5 315 at 4021 and the Ultra 7 at 4018. However, Cinebench single-core tests tell a different story: the Ultra 7 leads by 35.4% in R15 single-core and 19.1% in R20 single-core, with only a 2.1% edge in R23 single-core. The discrepancy suggests the Ultra 7 performs better in older Cinebench versions' single-threaded workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations with distinct design philosophies. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, also on a 3 nm process but fabricated by TSMC. Both are mobile-market parts with active production status.

Core counts differ meaningfully: the Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra 7 258V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts. The Ultra 7's extra two cores likely explain many of its multi-threaded wins, though the Core 5 315's Cinebench R23 result complicates that simple story.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. 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 258V lists 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7's per-core L2 allocation means its total L2 cache scales with core count, giving it substantially more aggregate cache capacity.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 7 258V supports only LPDDR5X but uses a dual-channel bus, delivering 136.5 GB/s, more than double the Core 5 315's bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 5 315 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 258V uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 5 315 featuring Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 7 258V uses the Arc 140V.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 7: its 2.20 GHz base clock and 4.80 GHz boost clock exceed the Core 5 315's 1.50 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. Thermal design power is close, with the Core 5 315 at 15 W and the Ultra 7 258V at 17 W. Sockets are incompatible: the Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra 7 258V uses Intel BGA 2833.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 285 against the Core 5 315's 184, a 35.4% advantage. This is an enormous gap for a single-threaded test and suggests the Ultra 7's higher boost clock and newer architecture deliver significantly better responsiveness in lightly threaded applications.

PassMark find prime numbers shows the second-largest margin: the Ultra 7 scores 185 versus 112 for the Core 5 315, a 39.5% difference. This test is highly sensitive to integer processing efficiency, and the Ultra 7's performance here is exceptional.

In floating-point math, the Ultra 7 scores 57372 against 42441, a 26% lead. Integer math follows a similar pattern at 42889 versus 31690, a 26.1% advantage. Physics calculations show the Ultra 7 at 1565 versus 1163, a 25.7% margin. These three PassMark results together indicate that the Ultra 7 is substantially stronger in compute-heavy workloads.

The Ultra 7 leads by 17.3% in data compression (176686 versus 146143) and 17.8% in data encryption (13534 versus 11119). Extended instructions favor the Ultra 7 by 10.7% (14717 versus 13143). Random string sorting shows an 18.7% edge for the Ultra 7 (21580 versus 17551).

Cinebench multi-core results are split between the two. In R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 leads 1596.5 versus 1308, an 18.1% margin. In R20 multi-core, the Ultra 7 leads 6739 versus 5452, a 19.1% margin. But in R23 multi-core, the Core 5 315 flips the script with 12981 versus 10301, a 26% advantage. This reversal is the most striking single data point in the comparison. The R23 result suggests that under the R23 workload's specific rendering pattern, the Core 5 315's architecture or cache behavior provides a significant advantage despite having fewer cores.

Cinebench R23 single-core is nearly a tie: the Ultra 7 scores 1872 versus 1832 for the Core 5 315, a 2.1% difference. PassMark single-thread is even closer, with the Core 5 315 winning at 4021 versus 4018, a 0.1% margin. The two chips are effectively identical in raw single-threaded PassMark performance.

The overall average benchmark score confirms the Ultra 7's advantage: 20454 versus 18188 for the Core 5 315. The percentile rankings place the Ultra 7 at 74 versus 72 for the Core 5 315, both in the upper range of all CPUs tracked.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is the superior processor for the vast majority of workloads. Its 14 wins versus 3 for the Core 5 315, combined with its higher average benchmark score (20454 versus 18188) and higher percentile ranking (74 versus 72), make it the recommended choice for users who need balanced performance across multi-threaded compute, data processing, and single-threaded tasks.

The Core 5 315's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700, both with identical average scores (18189 and 18180 respectively), as well as the Intel Core i7-1365U (18177, 0.1% behind) and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (18176, 0.1% behind). The Ultra 7 258V sits alongside the AMD Ryzen 5 5600 (20468, 0.1% ahead of the Ultra 7), AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (20425, 0.1% behind), AMD EPYC 9454P (20422, 0.2% behind), and AMD EPYC 7713 (20363, 0.4% behind).

For users whose primary workload matches the Cinebench R23 multi-core pattern, the Core 5 315 offers a compelling alternative. Its 26% edge in that specific test is the largest margin recorded in either direction, indicating that certain rendering or simulation workloads may run faster on the Wildcat Lake chip. However, this single win must be weighed against the Ultra 7's consistent leads across every other multi-threaded test, including R15 and R20 multi-core, PassMark multi-thread, and all the specialized compute tests.

The Core 5 315 also wins in PassMark single-thread, but only by 0.1%, which is within measurement noise. The Ultra 7's 35.4% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and 19.1% lead in R20 single-core suggest that the Ultra 7 is actually faster in most single-threaded scenarios, despite the PassMark result.

The Ultra 7 258V's dual-channel memory architecture, with 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the Core 5 315's 59.7 GB/s single-channel setup, likely contributes to its wins in data compression, encryption, and random string sorting. The higher memory bandwidth also benefits any workload that streams large datasets.

In terms of platform features, the Ultra 7 offers PCIe Gen 5 connectivity versus Gen 4 on the Core 5 315, and the Arc 140V integrated graphics are a notable upgrade over the Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 7's 8 cores versus 6 cores provide more parallel processing headroom, though the Core 5 315's R23 result shows that core count alone does not determine every outcome.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V uses a dual-channel memory bus delivering 136.5 GB/s, while the Intel Core 5 315 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 7's bandwidth is more than double.

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 wins with a score of 12981 versus 10301 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V, a 26% advantage. This is the largest margin in either direction across all head-to-head tests.

Q: How close are the single-threaded PassMark scores?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 scores 4021 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V scores 4018, a 0.1% difference. Both tests recorded identical scores for each chip.

Q: What are the process nodes and foundries?

A: Both processors are built on a 3 nm process. The Intel Core 5 315 uses Intel's own foundry, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which processor has higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 315 boosts to 4.40 GHz. The Ultra 7 also has a higher base clock at 2.20 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 5 315 | Intel Core Ultra 7 258V |

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

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 6 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 17 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 12 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 140V |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-09-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | Not available |

| Part Number | SAEFC | SRPMNSRPMT |