Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a completely one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core 5 315 trailing by double-digit percentages in every category. The largest gap appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 164,869 against 31,690 for the Core 5 315, a delta of -80.8%. Floating point math shows a similar pattern: the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 194,988 points versus 42,441 points, a -78.2% difference.

The Cinebench results reinforce this dominance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 while the Core 5 315 manages 12,981, a -73.5% delta. Single-core performance in the same test shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 6,909 versus 1,832, also -73.5%. The consistency of these deltas across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 (all between -73.5% and -73.6% for both multi-core and single-core) indicates a fundamental performance gap rather than workload-specific variance.

PassMark tests reveal the -73% to -76% range recurring for most workloads. Data compression shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 602,121 against 146,143 (-75.7%), data encryption at 46,949 versus 11,119 (-76.3%), and random string sorting at 73,651 versus 17,551 (-76.2%). Extended instructions measure 45,357 versus 13,143 (-71%), and find prime numbers records 459 versus 112 (-75.6%). The multithread PassMark score for the Core Ultra 9 285 reaches 56,602, while the Core 5 315 posts 15,272, a -73% delta.

The narrowest margin appears in PassMark single-thread performance. The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 versus 4,021 for the Core 5 315, a -17.6% delta. This smaller gap still favors the Core Ultra 9 285, but it shows the Core 5 315's single-core architecture is comparatively less disadvantaged than its multi-core throughput. The physics test shows the Core Ultra 9 285 at 3,598 against 1,163, a -67.7% delta, the second-smallest gap recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two processors occupy different market segments and use distinct silicon designs. The Intel Core 5 315 is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: the Core 5 315 is fabricated by Intel, whereas the Core Ultra 9 285 is fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 285 carries the Arrow Lake architecture and Arrow Lake-S codename, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with no explicit architecture listed.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Core 5 315 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 provides 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor enables hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher base clock at 2.50 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and a higher boost clock at 5.60 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. Power envelopes also differ: the Core 5 315 has a 15 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has a 65 W TDP.

Cache hierarchies show substantial differences. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 lists 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support differs as well: the Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 9 285 but not on the Core 5 315.

PCIe connectivity favors the Core Ultra 9 285 with Gen 5 and 20 lanes, while the Core 5 315 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a published transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 315 lists no transistor or die size data. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core 5 315.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 records 48,945 points versus 12,981 for the Intel Core 5 315, a -73.5% delta favoring the Core Ultra 9 285.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: PassMark single-thread scores show the Core Ultra 9 285 at 4,881 and the Core 5 315 at 4,021, a -17.6% delta. This is the smallest relative gap across all recorded benchmarks.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 315 supports single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing node?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node, but the Core 5 315 is fabricated by Intel while the Core Ultra 9 285 is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

Q: What are the core counts for each processor?

A: The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 315 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Architecture | Not listed | Arrow Lake |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 243 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 outperforms the Intel Core 5 315 in every benchmark category, winning all 17 head-to-head tests. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 285 is 75,488, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 315 averages 18,188, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The Core Ultra 9 285's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P (75,582, -0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75,738, -0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75,716, -0.3% delta). The Core 5 315's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F (18,189, 0% delta) and the Intel Core i7-9700 (18,180, 0% delta).

The Core Ultra 9 285 belongs to the desktop segment and uses the Arrow Lake architecture with 24 cores, 36 MB of shared L3 cache, dual-channel memory support, and Gen 5 PCIe connectivity. The Core 5 315 targets mobile devices with 6 cores, 6 MB of shared L3 cache, single-channel memory, and Gen 4 PCIe. The Core Ultra 9 285 also supports ECC memory and has a higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. Its launch MSRP is $579. The Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340.

The performance deltas are consistent across rendering, compression, encryption, and math workloads. The Core Ultra 9 285 offers more than triple the multi-core throughput in Cinebench tests, and the PassMark multithread score of 56,602 versus 15,272 confirms this pattern. The single-thread advantage is smaller but still decisive at -17.6% in PassMark. The Core 5 315 cannot match the Core Ultra 9 285 in any measured category, and the data indicates no scenario where the Core 5 315 would outperform its desktop counterpart.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantages rather than any reversal. The largest wins occur in PassMark integer math (-80.8%) and floating point math (-78.2%), indicating the Core Ultra 9 285 is particularly strong in CPU-intensive arithmetic workloads. Data compression (-75.7%), encryption (-76.3%), and random string sorting (-76.2%) all show similar margins, suggesting the 24-core configuration with 36 MB of shared L3 cache excels at parallel data processing.

Cinebench multi-core tests consistently show -73.5% deltas, which means the Core Ultra 9 285 is roughly three times faster than the Core 5 315 in rendering tasks. The Core Ultra 9 285 also dominates in the physics test (-67.7%) and extended instructions (-71%). The narrowest edge appears in single-thread PassMark at -17.6%, where the Core Ultra 9 285's higher boost clock (5.60 GHz versus 4.40 GHz) provides a measurable but smaller advantage.

The Core 5 315, despite losing all benchmarks, still has a defined role in the database. It is a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, making it suited for power-constrained environments. Its 6-core, 6-thread configuration with 6 MB of shared L3 cache and single-channel memory support targets lightweight workloads where the Core Ultra 9 285's 65 W TDP and desktop socket would be impractical. The Core 5 315 supports LPDDR5X memory, which the Core Ultra 9 285 does not, and its Wildcat Lake architecture on Intel BGA 1516 socket indicates a compact design. The data shows the Core 5 315 delivers 72nd percentile performance among all CPUs, which is respectable for a mobile part, but the Core Ultra 9 285 at the 95th percentile occupies a different performance class entirely.