Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the Intel Core 5 315 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core Ultra 9 285H takes the win. The largest margin appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 9 scores 330 against the Core 5's 112, a 66.1% advantage. PassMark integer math tells a similar story: 85922 versus 31690, a 63.1% lead for the Ultra 9. Floating point math also favors the higher-tier chip, with 109190 against 42441, a 61.1% delta.

Multi-threaded Cinebench results reinforce this pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 posts 3177.5 while the Core 5 manages 1308, a 58.8% gap. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 12201 versus 5452, a 55.3% difference. The R23 multicore run narrows the margin somewhat: 20781.5 versus 12981, a 37.5% lead. The pattern holds for data compression (335859 versus 146143, 56.5% ahead), data encryption (26140 versus 11119, 57.5% ahead), and random string sorting (40931 versus 17551, 57.1% ahead).

Single-threaded performance tells a more moderate story. The smallest delta in the entire set is PassMark single thread, where the Ultra 9 scores 4415 and the Core 5 scores 4021, only 8.9% apart. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows 2129.5 versus 1832, a 14% gap. The R15 singlecore run is closer in percentage terms but still decisive: 313 versus 184, a 41.2% lead for the Ultra 9. Extended instructions follow with 26794 versus 13143, a 50.9% margin, and physics simulation shows 2513 versus 1163, a 53.7% gap.

The Core Ultra 9 285H also holds a substantial lead in average benchmark score: 38312 versus 18188. That places the Ultra 9 in the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 sits at the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for each chip confirm their respective tiers: the Core 5's closest competitor is the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18189, essentially tied at 0% delta, followed by the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18180. The Ultra 9's nearest rival is the Intel Core 9 270H at 38335, a 0.1% difference, with the Intel Xeon w3-2525 close behind at 38392.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is built on Arrow Lake-H. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Core 5, while TSMC produces the Ultra 9. The Core 5 has 6 cores and 6 threads with no hyperthreading, whereas the Ultra 9 doubles that with 16 cores and 16 threads.

Cache allocations diverge sharply. The Core 5 carries 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. Clock speeds also separate the two: the Core 5 runs at a 1.50 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost, while the Ultra 9 runs at 2.90 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost. Thermal design power reflects the performance intent, with the Core 5 at 15 W and the Ultra 9 at 45 W.

Memory support differs in width and bandwidth. Both accept DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but the Core 5 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ultra 9 uses dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory support is absent on the Core 5 but present on the Ultra 9. PCIe capability also differs: the Core 5 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics separate the two as well. The Core 5 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 9 uses Arc Graphics 140T. Socket requirements differ, with the Core 5 on Intel BGA 1516 and the Ultra 9 on Intel BGA 2049. The release dates also differ: the Ultra 9 launched earlier, with a release date of 2025-01-12, while the Core 5 arrived later, with a release date of 2026-04-15.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H scores 20781.5 in Cinebench R23 multicore, versus 12981 for the Intel Core 5 315. That is a 37.5% advantage for the Ultra 9.

Q: How close are the two in single-threaded PassMark performance?

A: The smallest gap in the head-to-head data is PassMark single thread. The Core Ultra 9 285H scores 4415, and the Core 5 315 scores 4021, a difference of 8.9%.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. Intel fabricates the Core 5 315, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 9 285H.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H provides 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus, while the Core 5 315 provides 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 315 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, which is one-quarter of the Ultra 9's capacity.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The multiplier is locked on both the Intel Core 5 315 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H outperforms the Intel Core 5 315 in every recorded benchmark, with margins ranging from 8.9% in PassMark single thread to 66.1% in PassMark find prime numbers. The average benchmark score confirms the separation: 38312 for the Ultra 9 versus 18188 for the Core 5. The percentile placement also reflects this, with the Ultra 9 at the 86th percentile of all CPUs and the Core 5 at the 72nd percentile.

The Core 5 315 has a single advantage in the recorded data: its launch MSRP of $340, compared to the Ultra 9's launch MSRP of $651. However, the performance gap is substantial across both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. The Ultra 9 delivers more than double the average benchmark score, and its dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and 24 MB of L3 cache provide architectural headroom that the Core 5 cannot match.

The Core 5 315 is positioned as a lower-power mobile option with a 15 W TDP, 6 cores, and a single-channel memory bus. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700, both effectively tied at 0% delta. The Ultra 9 285H, with its 16 cores, 45 W TDP, dual-channel memory, and PCIe Gen 5 support, competes in a higher tier, sitting alongside the Intel Core 9 270H and Intel Xeon w3-2525.

For workloads that depend on multi-core throughput, data compression, encryption, or physics simulation, the Ultra 9 is the clear choice from the recorded measurements. For single-threaded tasks, the Ultra 9 still leads, though the margin narrows to under 15% in Cinebench R23 singlecore and under 9% in PassMark single thread. The Core 5 315 remains a viable option for constrained power envelopes, but the benchmark data shows no workload category where it surpasses the Ultra 9.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 5 315 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 6 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| 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 (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | $651 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |