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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins every single recorded test against the Intel Core 5 315. Across all 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core Ultra 9 285T takes the top spot, with the Core 5 315 recording zero wins. The margins vary considerably by workload, and the pattern of those margins reveals where each processor's architecture shows its strengths and weaknesses.

The largest gap appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 132,433 against 31,690 for the Core 5 315, a delta of 76.1 percent in favor of the larger chip. Floating point math tells a similar story: 137,923 versus 42,441, a 69.2 percent advantage. These two results indicate that the Core Ultra 9 285T's additional execution resources translate directly into raw arithmetic throughput, and the margin is substantially larger than the core count difference alone would suggest.

Cinebench results are remarkably consistent, with the Core Ultra 9 285T leading by 61.3 percent in R15 multicore, 61.4 percent in R15 singlecore, 61.3 percent in R20 multicore, 61.4 percent in R20 singlecore, and 61.3 percent in both R23 multicore and singlecore. The uniformity of these deltas across both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests is striking. It suggests that the performance gap is not merely a function of having more cores, but also stems from a meaningful per-thread advantage in the Core Ultra 9 285T's execution pipeline.

The single-threaded PassMark results show the smallest margin of any test. The Core Ultra 9 285T scores 4,576 against 4,021 for the Core 5 315, a 12.1 percent advantage. This is the tightest contest in the entire benchmark suite, and it indicates that the Core 5 315's single-core efficiency is comparatively strong, even though it still trails the larger processor.

Encryption workloads show one of the wider gaps. The Core Ultra 9 285T records 32,061 in PassMark data encryption, while the Core 5 315 manages 11,119, a 65.3 percent deficit for the smaller chip. Prime number finding shows a 67.5 percent gap, with scores of 345 and 112 respectively. These cryptographic and number-theoretic workloads often benefit from wider vector units and more aggressive instruction scheduling, which would explain the outsized advantage.

Data compression favors the Core Ultra 9 285T by 62 percent, with scores of 384,140 and 146,143. Random string sorting shows a 63.2 percent gap, 47,695 versus 17,551. Extended instructions deliver a 52.2 percent advantage, the second-smallest margin after single-threaded PassMark, at 27,477 versus 13,143. Physics simulation shows a 59.1 percent gap, 2,842 against 1,163.

The average benchmark score across all tests reinforces the overall picture: the Core Ultra 9 285T averages 51,310, while the Core 5 315 averages 18,188. The Core Ultra 9 285T sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 315 sits at the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 315 include the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18,189, the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18,180, and the Intel Core i7-1365U at 18,177, all within 0.1 percent of its average score. The Core Ultra 9 285T's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-14900T at 51,015, 0.6 percent behind, and the Intel Core i9-13900F at 51,730, 0.8 percent ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 5 315 records zero wins in the comparison.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: PassMark integer math shows the biggest difference, with the Core Ultra 9 285T scoring 132,433 versus 31,690 for the Core 5 315, a 76.1 percent advantage.

Q: Is the Core 5 315 competitive in any single test?

A: The closest result is PassMark single-threaded performance, where the Core Ultra 9 285T leads by only 12.1 percent, scoring 4,576 against 4,021. This is the narrowest margin in the entire suite.

Q: How do the Cinebench results compare across versions?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T leads by 61.3 percent in R15 multicore, R20 multicore, and R23 multicore, and by 61.4 percent in R15 singlecore and R20 singlecore. The R23 singlecore gap is 61.3 percent.

Q: What do the percentile rankings show?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T ranks at the 91st percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 315 ranks at the 72nd percentile.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T has an average benchmark score of 51,310, compared to 18,188 for the Core 5 315. The Core 5 315's closest rival in the database is the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18,189, essentially identical.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is the substantially faster processor in every recorded workload, with average benchmark scores 2.8 times higher than the Core 5 315. Its 91st percentile ranking places it among the higher-performing CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 315's 72nd percentile puts it in the mid-to-upper range of all processors.

The Core 5 315 does demonstrate one notable strength: its single-threaded PassMark score of 4,021 is only 12.1 percent behind the Core Ultra 9 285T, which is a far smaller gap than the multi-threaded margins. This indicates that for workloads that depend heavily on single-thread performance, the Core 5 315 is comparatively less disadvantaged.

The Core Ultra 9 285T's nearest rivals, the Intel Core i9-14900T at 0.6 percent behind and the Intel Core i9-13900F at 0.8 percent ahead, show that it sits in a competitive tier of high-end desktop processors. The Core 5 315, by contrast, sits within 0.1 percent of the AMD EPYC 9274F, Intel Core i7-9700, Intel Core i7-1365U, and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, placing it in a much different performance class.

For users whose workloads are dominated by multi-threaded rendering, encryption, compression, or arithmetic-heavy computation, the Core Ultra 9 285T is the only choice supported by the data. For scenarios where power envelope and single-thread responsiveness matter more than raw throughput, the Core 5 315's smaller gap in single-threaded tests makes it a less extreme compromise, though it still loses every recorded comparison.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Core 5 315 uses 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading, as both have equal core and thread counts.

Clock speeds differ notably. The Core 5 315 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285T has a lower base clock of 1.40 GHz but a significantly higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The thermal design power differs by more than double: the Core 5 315 is rated at 15 W, while the Core Ultra 9 285T is rated at 35 W.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket, while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop platforms. The market segments confirm this split: the Core 5 315 is a mobile processor, and the Core Ultra 9 285T is a desktop processor.

Memory support differs in both type and channel configuration. 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 285T supports only DDR5 but over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285T also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 315 does not.

PCIe connectivity shows a generation and lane count gap. The Core 5 315 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285T provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The launch MSRP for the Core 5 315 is $340, and for the Core Ultra 9 285T it is $549. The Core Ultra 9 285T has a larger reported transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 315 does not have these figures recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural lineages. The Core 5 315 is built on the Wildcat Lake architecture and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation under the Ultra 9 designation.

Both processors are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core 5 315 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285T is fabricated by TSMC. This difference in foundry may contribute to the distinct design choices visible in the cache hierarchy and transistor budget.

Cache configurations diverge 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 Core Ultra 9 285T lists its L1 cache as 192 KB per core, its L2 cache as 3 MB per core, and its L3 cache as 36 MB shared. The per-core L2 allocation in the Core Ultra 9 285T is particularly notable, as it provides substantially more private cache per core than the Core 5 315's aggregate L2 figure.

The Core Ultra 9 285T carries a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², figures that are not recorded for the Core 5 315. The larger transistor budget supports the 24-core configuration, the larger shared L3 cache, and the more powerful integrated graphics.

The integrated graphics architectures differ by generation and capability. The Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, indicating a newer graphics architecture design. The Core Ultra 9 285T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, which represents a more heavily provisioned graphics subsystem despite being from the Xe-LPG lineage.

The Core Ultra 9 285T's dual-channel memory controller paired with ECC support indicates a design aimed at higher data integrity and bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The Core 5 315's single-channel controller with LPDDR5X support reflects a mobile-focused design prioritizing lower power consumption and simpler memory topology. The 15 W TDP of the Core 5 315 versus the 35 W TDP of the Core Ultra 9 285T further reinforces this division, as does the mobile BGA socket on the smaller chip versus the desktop Socket 1851 on the larger one.