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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a complete sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. There is not a single test where the Intel Core 5 315 takes the lead. The margin varies significantly by workload, from a modest single-thread advantage to a massive gap in math-intensive and compression tasks.

In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 36,429.5 against 12,981 for the Core 5, a 64.4% deficit for the smaller chip. The gap widens in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Ultra 9 posts 20,236 versus 5,452, a 73.1% difference. The R15 multicore test shows 5,656.5 versus 1,308, again 76.9% apart. These multicore results consistently place the Ultra 9 between 2.8 and 4.3 times faster, depending on the test generation.

Single-core results tell a different story. The closest margin in the entire dataset appears in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 scores 4,618 versus 4,021, only 12.9% ahead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,187.5 versus 1,832, a 16.3% edge. The older R20 single-core test widens to 73.1% (2,856 versus 769), and R15 single-core shows 323.5 versus 184, a 43.1% gap. The newer Cinebench versions indicate the architectural improvements narrow the per-core efficiency gap considerably.

PassMark integer math delivers the largest proportional difference: 155,076 versus 31,690, a 79.6% deficit for the Core 5. Floating-point math follows at 78.2% (194,998 versus 42,441). Data compression shows 631,885 versus 146,143, a 76.9% gap. Data encryption is 77.1% apart (48,567 versus 11,119). Extended instructions score 49,148 versus 13,143, a 73.3% difference. Random string sorting sits at 77,396 versus 17,551, a 77.3% gap. Physics tests show 3,476 versus 1,163, a 66.5% difference. Prime number finding records 460 versus 112, a 75.7% gap. PassMark multithread shows 56,902 versus 15,272, a 73.2% difference.

The average benchmark score reinforces this split: the Ultra 9 averages 76,155, while the Core 5 averages 18,188. The Ultra 9 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 sits in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 are the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700 at identical average scores, plus the Intel Core i7-1365U and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U within 0.1%. For the Ultra 9, the closest competition comes from the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX at 0.1% behind, the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P at 0.4% behind, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX at 0.5% behind, with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D 0.5% ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel product lines and use different silicon designs. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Ultra 9 285HX uses Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-HX codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation.

Both chips are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs. Intel fabricates the Core 5 315 in-house. The Ultra 9 285HX is manufactured by TSMC. The Ultra 9 carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 does not have recorded transistor or die size data.

Core configuration differs dramatically. The Core 5 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Ultra 9 provides 24 cores and 24 threads, also without additional threads per core. The base clock for the Core 5 is 1.50 GHz, rising to 4.40 GHz boost. The Ultra 9 runs at 2.80 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 5 lists L1 cache as 192 KB total, L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The Ultra 9 lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 3 MB per core, and L3 as 36 MB shared. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 9 gives it substantially more aggregate cache, which contributes to the large gaps in compression and encryption workloads.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 supports only DDR5, but uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the Ultra 9 but not on the Core 5. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

PCIe capabilities separate the two clearly. The Core 5 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes. Sockets differ: the Core 5 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114. The Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 5 does not.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the Ultra 9 wins every recorded benchmark, the use-case split is not about which processor wins tasks, but rather how the margin changes across workload types. The Core 5 remains competitive in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks where the single-thread deficit is smallest. The PassMark single-thread test shows only a 12.9% gap, and Cinebench R23 single-core is 16.3% apart. These are the workloads where the Core 5's lower power envelope and simpler design minimize the disadvantage.

The Ultra 9 dominates heavily in throughput-oriented tasks. The 79.6% lead in integer math, 78.2% in floating-point math, and 76.9% in data compression indicate workloads that scale with core count and cache capacity. Encryption workloads show a 77.1% lead, which benefits from the larger L3 cache and dual-channel memory bandwidth. The 73.3% lead in extended instructions and 73.2% in multithread performance confirm that parallel workloads extract the full potential of the 24-core configuration.

For the Core 5, the practical strengths lie in efficiency rather than raw performance. It uses a 15 W TDP versus 55 W for the Ultra 9, and its single-channel memory bus with LPDDR5X support suits compact mobile designs. The Core 5's 72nd percentile ranking places it above the majority of all CPUs in the database, so it is not a weak performer in absolute terms. Its average score of 18,188 matches the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700 exactly, and it sits just 0.1% behind the Intel Core i7-1365U and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U.

The Ultra 9's 95th percentile ranking puts it near the top of the entire database. Its nearest rivals are all high-end AMD parts: the Ryzen 9 8945HX (0.1% behind), EPYC Embedded 8224P (0.4% behind), and Threadripper PRO 9945WX (0.5% behind). Only the Ryzen 9 9950X3D sits ahead at 0.5%. This positioning confirms the Ultra 9 as a top-tier mobile processor for demanding professional workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every measured specification. Core count: 6 versus 24. Thread count: 6 versus 24. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.80 GHz. Boost clock: 4.40 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. Thermal design power: 15 W versus 55 W. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 2114.

Process node is identical at 3 nm, but foundry differs: Intel versus TSMC. The Ultra 9 records 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size; the Core 5 has no recorded values for either. Cache differs in both structure and size: L1 is 192 KB total versus 192 KB per core, L2 is 2.5 MB versus 3 MB per core, and L3 is 6 MB shared versus 36 MB shared.

Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X versus DDR5 only. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC support: not available versus supported. PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Multiplier: locked versus unlocked. Release date: April 2026 versus January 2025. The Core 5 carries a launch MSRP of $340; the Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

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

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 scores 4,618 versus 4,021, a 12.9% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 16.3% difference (2,187.5 versus 1,832). Older R20 and R15 single-core tests show much larger gaps of 73.1% and 43.1% respectively.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark gap between the two?

A: PassMark integer math shows the largest difference at 79.6%, with the Ultra 9 scoring 155,076 versus 31,690 for the Core 5. Floating-point math is close behind at 78.2% (194,998 versus 42,441).

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs. The Core 5 315 is fabricated by Intel, while the Ultra 9 285HX is fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 9 also records 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size, while the Core 5 has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 315 does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 9 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and supports DDR5 only. The Core 5 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

The Verdict

The recorded data directs a clear choice for users who need maximum throughput. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins every benchmark in the comparison. It delivers 4.3 times the multicore performance in Cinebench R15, 3.7 times in R20, and 2.8 times in R23. Its 24-core configuration with 36 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth produces dominant results in compression, encryption, and math workloads. The 95th percentile ranking places it among the fastest mobile processors in the database, surrounded by high-end AMD competition.

The Intel Core 5 315 serves a different purpose. Its 15 W TDP, single-channel LPDDR5X support, and compact BGA 1516 socket suit thin-and-light mobile designs where power efficiency and physical footprint matter more than raw compute. The single-thread results show it is not far behind in lightly threaded tasks: the 12.9% gap in PassMark single-thread and 16.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core are the closest margins recorded. The 72nd percentile ranking still places it above most CPUs, matching the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700 in average score.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision rests on workload scaling and power budget. The Ultra 9 justifies its higher TDP and larger die with massive parallel performance gains. The Core 5 offers respectable single-thread capability with a fraction of the power draw. There is no benchmark data showing the Core 5 winning any task, so the only reason to select it over the Ultra 9 is the efficiency profile and platform requirements, not performance. The Ultra 9 is the only choice when benchmark scores are the primary selection criterion.