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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records 17 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core 5 315 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. The Core Ultra 9 285K wins every single one of them. There are no tests in the database where the Core 5 315 takes the lead, so the analysis is entirely about the magnitude of the Ultra 9's advantage across different workload types.

The largest gaps appear in parallel integer and memory-heavy workloads. In Passmark integer math, the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 172,379 against 31,690 for the Core 5 315, a delta of -81.6%. That is the biggest margin recorded in the head-to-head set. Passmark data compression shows a nearly identical pattern: 790,052 versus 146,143, a -81.5% delta. Floating point math follows at 224,324 versus 42,441, a -81.1% gap. These three tests are the most lopsided results, all hovering around 80% or more in favor of the Ultra 9.

The next tier of deltas sits in the upper 70s. Passmark data encryption records 57,745 against 11,119, a -80.7% difference. Random string sorting shows 94,927 versus 17,551, a -81.5% delta. Extended instructions produce 62,277 versus 13,143, a -78.9% gap. Find prime numbers delivers 541 versus 112, a -79.3% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 24,003 versus 5,452, a -77.3% difference, and Passmark multithread mirrors that exact -77.3% delta with scores of 67,260 and 15,272.

The moderate gaps appear in single-core and physics-oriented tests. Cinebench R23 singlecore gives the Ultra 9 a 2,377 score versus 1,832 for the Core 5 315, a -22.9% delta. Passmark single thread shows 5,087 versus 4,021, a -21% delta. Both Passmark single-thread entries record the same result. Cinebench R15 singlecore shows 359 versus 184, a -48.7% gap, which is larger than the other single-core tests but still far below the multicore margins. Cinebench R23 multicore sits at 42,522 versus 12,981, a -69.5% delta. Passmark physics records 3,938 versus 1,163, a -70.5% delta. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 6,494 versus 1,308, a -79.9% delta, and Cinebench R20 singlecore shows 3,388 versus 769, a -77.3% delta.

The pattern is consistent: the Core Ultra 9 285K's advantage grows with thread count and parallel instruction throughput. Single-core deltas cluster around 21% to 49%, while multicore and math-heavy deltas routinely exceed 75%. The Core 5 315's average benchmark score of 18,188 places it at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core Ultra 9 285K posts an average of 83,807 and sits at the 96th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 315 include the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18,189 (delta 0%), the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18,180 (0%), the Intel Core i7-1365U at 18,177 (0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 18,176 (0.1%). The Core Ultra 9 285K's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus at 84,003 (-0.2%), the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83,090 (0.9%), the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82,980 (1%), and the AMD EPYC 7F72 at 85,072 (-1.5%). The Core 5 315 competes with mid-range laptop silicon from several generations ago, while the Core Ultra 9 285K trades places with high-end server and desktop parts.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports only one conclusion for raw performance: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is in a different class. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, and its average benchmark score of 83,807 is roughly 4.6 times the Core 5 315's 18,188. The percentile ranking confirms the separation, 96th versus 72nd. Every workload category, from Cinebench rendering to Passmark integer and floating point math, shows the Ultra 9 ahead by at least 21%.

The Core 5 315 is a mobile processor with 6 cores and 6 threads, a 15 W TDP, and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285K is a desktop part with 24 cores and 24 threads, a 125 W TDP, and a 5.70 GHz boost clock. The data shows the Ultra 9 delivering 42,522 in Cinebench R23 multicore versus 12,981, and 2,377 in single-core versus 1,832. The Core 5 315 cannot match the Ultra 9 in any measured metric, but its power envelope and mobile socket position it for a different use case entirely.

The choice between them is not a performance contest. The Core 5 315 targets compact mobile systems where the 15 W TDP and Intel BGA 1516 socket matter more than peak throughput. The Core Ultra 9 285K targets desktop builds where the 125 W TDP, Socket 1851, and unlocked multiplier allow maximum compute. The data does not show any scenario where the Core 5 315 outperforms the Ultra 9, so users requiring the highest scores in the database must select the Ultra 9. Users constrained by mobile power limits have no alternative in this comparison, the Core 5 315 is the only mobile part listed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 9 285K uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, and carries the Arrow Lake architecture label. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. Intel fabricates the Core 5 315, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 9 285K. The Core Ultra 9 285K lists 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size. The Core 5 315 has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

The cache structures differ substantially. The Core 5 315 has a 192 KB L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285K lists 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 9 scales with its 24 cores, yielding a much larger total cache footprint. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units, while the Core Ultra 9 285K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285K supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 315 does not. PCIe connectivity reflects the platform split: the Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285K provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The production status for both is Active. Release dates differ, with the Core 5 315 dated 2026-04-15 and the Core Ultra 9 285K dated 2024-10-23. The Core Ultra 9 285K has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 315 does not. Part numbers are SAEFC for the Core 5 315 and SRQD5 for the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Specification Differences

The most direct specification comparison starts with cores and threads. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 315 and 3.70 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 285K. Boost clocks are 4.40 GHz and 5.70 GHz respectively. The TDP difference is substantial: 15 W for the Core 5 315 versus 125 W for the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Sockets differ completely. The Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, a soldered mobile socket. The Core Ultra 9 285K uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket. Memory channels differ: single-channel for the Core 5 315, dual-channel for the Core Ultra 9 285K. Memory bandwidth follows at 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC support is absent on the Core 5 315 and present on the Core Ultra 9 285K.

The market segments confirm the intended platforms: Mobile for the Core 5 315, Desktop for the Core Ultra 9 285K. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 315 is $340, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 9 285K is $589. The multiplier is locked on the Core 5 315 and unlocked on the Core Ultra 9 285K. The process node is 3 nm for both, but the foundry is Intel for the Core 5 315 and TSMC for the Core Ultra 9 285K.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has an average benchmark score of 83,807, while the Intel Core 5 315 has an average of 18,188. The Ultra 9 also sits at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 315.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 2,377 versus 1,832 for the Core 5 315, a -22.9% delta. Passmark single thread shows 5,087 versus 4,021, a -21% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows the larger gap: 359 versus 184, a -48.7% delta.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

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

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads. Both processors have thread counts equal to core counts.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K supports DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Are both processors on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are listed as 3 nm. The foundries differ: Intel fabricates the Core 5 315, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 9 285K.