Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 268V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents an unusual split: the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V wins 16 of 17 recorded comparisons, yet the Intel Core 5 315 claims the single most decisive victory. That lone win comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 315 scores 12981 against 10653 for the Ultra 7 268V, a 21.9% advantage. This result stands out because every other multi-threaded workload in the database favors the Ultra 7.

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the Ultra 7 268V at 1616 versus 1308 for the Core 5 315, a 19.1% deficit for the latter. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows the same pattern: 6887 against 5452, a 20.8% gap. The PassMark multi-thread score is 19297 for the Ultra 7 and 15272 for the Core 5, a 20.9% difference. These three results cluster tightly around the 20% mark, suggesting a consistent multi-threaded advantage for the Ultra 7 in most rendering and synthetic workloads.

Single-core results tell a similar story with varying intensity. The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R15, where the Ultra 7 268V scores 293 versus 184 for the Core 5 315, a 37.2% difference. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 972 against 769, a 20.9% gap. The R23 single-core test narrows the margin to 4.6%, with 1921 for the Ultra 7 and 1832 for the Core 5. PassMark single-thread results show the smallest difference of any benchmark: 4051 versus 4021, just 0.7% apart.

The PassMark suite exposes the Ultra 7's breadth. Data compression shows 181443 against 146143, a 19.5% gap. Data encryption delivers 13779 versus 11119, a 19.3% difference. Extended instructions land at 15323 for the Ultra 7 and 13143 for the Core 5, a 14.2% margin. The prime number search test produces the second-largest delta in the entire comparison: 192 versus 112, a 41.7% gap. Floating point math runs 57628 against 42441, a 26.4% difference, while integer math shows 42669 versus 31690, a 25.7% margin. Physics simulation scores 1617 versus 1163, a 28.1% gap. Random string sorting completes the sweep at 22416 versus 17551, a 21.7% difference.

The average benchmark score places the Ultra 7 268V at 20897, which sits in the 74th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 315 averages 18188, landing in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 315 include the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18189, the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18180, the Intel Core i7-1365U at 18177, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 18176, all within 0.1% of its average. The Ultra 7 268V's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE at 20900, followed by the Intel Core i5-12600T at 20917 (0.1% higher), the AMD EPYC 7J13 at 20845 (0.2% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U at 20826 (0.3% lower).

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 315's sole victory in Cinebench R23 multi-core raises a question about workload behavior. The R23 test is a longer-running render workload compared to R15 and R20, and the 21.9% margin suggests the Core 5 315 sustains performance differently under extended load. With 6 cores and 6 threads, it lacks simultaneous multithreading, yet it outperforms the 8-core, 8-thread Ultra 7 in this specific test. The data indicates a workload-specific advantage rather than a general multi-core superiority.

Every other recorded workload favors the Ultra 7 268V. Rendering tasks in R15 and R20 multi-core show consistent 19-21% advantages. Single-core rendering across all three Cinebench versions favors the Ultra 7, with margins ranging from 4.6% to 37.2%. The PassMark suite covers compression, encryption, instruction extension, prime number calculation, floating point, integer math, physics, sorting, and general multi-thread and single-thread tests; the Ultra 7 wins all of them.

The use-case split follows the benchmark categories. For sustained multi-core rendering workloads similar to Cinebench R23, the Core 5 315 demonstrates a measurable advantage. For shorter render tasks, general productivity, data processing, encryption, physics simulation, and mixed integer/floating point workloads, the Ultra 7 268V delivers higher scores across the board. The single-thread PassMark results being nearly identical (0.7% apart) indicates the two processors are effectively matched for lightly threaded everyday tasks, while the Ultra 7 pulls ahead in more demanding scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V wins 16 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The Intel Core 5 315 wins only one: Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: How large is the Core 5 315's advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core 5 315 scores 12981 against 10653 for the Ultra 7 268V, a 21.9% difference in favor of the Core 5.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two processors?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows the Ultra 7 268V at 4051 and the Core 5 315 at 4021, a 0.7% gap. The Cinebench R23 single-core test is the second closest at 4.6%.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the biggest difference: the Ultra 7 268V scores 192 versus 112 for the Core 5 315, a 41.7% margin. The largest Core 5 advantage is 21.9% in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ultra 7 268V averages 20897, placing in the 74th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 315 averages 18188, placing in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Are the nearest rivals for each processor different in character?

A: The Core 5 315's nearest rivals include server and mobile parts: the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18189, Intel Core i7-9700 at 18180, Intel Core i7-1365U at 18177, and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 18176. The Ultra 7 268V's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE at 20900, Intel Core i5-12600T at 20917, AMD EPYC 7J13 at 20845, and Intel Core Ultra 5 125U at 20826.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core configuration. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Ultra 7 268V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Core 5 315 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Ultra 7 268V starts at 2.20 GHz base and reaches 5.00 GHz boost.

Thermal design power differs slightly: 15 watts for the Core 5 315 versus 17 watts for the Ultra 7 268V. The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5, Intel BGA 2833 for the Ultra 7.

Memory support varies. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 7 268V lists memory support as dependent on motherboard, uses a dual-channel bus, and has no recorded bandwidth figure.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The Core 5 315 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Ultra 7 268V uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 315 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 7 268V includes Arc 140V graphics.

The Core 5 315 has a recorded launch MSRP of $340. The Ultra 7 268V has no launch MSRP in the database. Release dates differ: the Core 5 315 is dated 2026-04-15, while the Ultra 7 268V is dated 2024-09-23.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 315 belongs to the Wildcat Lake generation and uses the Wildcat Lake codename. The Ultra 7 268V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Lunar Lake architecture and codename.

Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core 5 315 is fabricated by Intel. The Ultra 7 268V is fabricated by TSMC.

Cache structures differ 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 268V lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 2.5 MB per core, and L3 as 12 MB shared. The per-core L2 arrangement on the Ultra 7 means its total L2 scales with core count, while the Core 5's L2 figure appears to be a fixed total.

Neither processor supports ECC memory. Both have locked multipliers. Production status is Active for both. The Core 5 315 has part number SAEFC, while the Ultra 7 268V lists SRPMLSRPMX.

The memory controller configuration differs. The Core 5 315 uses a single-channel bus with a specified bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 7 268V uses a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth recorded in the database, and its memory support depends on the motherboard.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V as the stronger performer in the overwhelming majority of workloads. It wins 16 of 17 benchmarks and holds a 14.9% higher average score (20897 versus 18188). Its advantages span rendering, data compression, encryption, math operations, physics, and sorting. The multi-core margins in most tests cluster between 19% and 21%, while single-core margins range from 0.7% to 37.2%. The 74th percentile placement versus 72nd confirms the Ultra 7 sits slightly higher in the overall CPU distribution.

The Intel Core 5 315 has one clear claim: Cinebench R23 multi-core. The 21.9% margin there is substantial and suggests a specific strength in sustained rendering workloads. Its 6-core, 6-thread configuration with a 1.50 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost delivers a result that the 8-core, 8-thread Ultra 7 cannot match in that test. The Core 5 also carries a lower TDP of 15 watts versus 17 watts, and its single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth differs from the Ultra 7's dual-channel configuration.

The data does not support a blanket recommendation for either processor across all scenarios. For users prioritizing the specific Cinebench R23 multi-core workload, the Core 5 315 delivers a measurable advantage. For every other recorded benchmark, the Ultra 7 268V provides higher scores, often by wide margins. The choice depends on whether the workload matches the Core 5's single winning test or falls into the broader category where the Ultra 7 dominates.