Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V, which wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The only exception is a single multi-core test where the Intel Core 5 315 takes a commanding lead. This split reveals a fascinating contrast in workload behavior that goes beyond simple core counts.

The most striking result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core 5 315 scores 12981, while the Ultra 9 288V manages only 10178. That is a 27.5% advantage for the 6-core, 6-thread Wildcat Lake part. This is a significant outlier when compared to the rest of the data, suggesting the Core 5 315 has a particular strength in sustained, heavily threaded rendering workloads, possibly due to its architecture design. The Ultra 9 288V, despite having 8 cores and 8 threads, falls behind substantially in this specific test.

Every other Cinebench result goes to the Ultra 9 288V. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 1583 versus 1308, a 17.4% margin. The single-core results are even more dramatic in R15, with the Ultra 9 posting 301.5 against the Core 5's 184, a 39% lead. The R20 tests show a consistent 22.9% advantage for the Ultra 9 in both multi-core (7069 vs 5452) and single-core (997 vs 769). In R23 single-core, the gap narrows to 6.1%, with the Ultra 9 at 1950 and the Core 5 at 1832.

The PassMark suite tells a similar story of Ultra 9 dominance, though the margins vary. The largest gap appears in the find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 9 scores 195 against the Core 5's 112, a 42.6% difference. This points to a major advantage in integer-heavy, latency-sensitive workloads. Floating point math shows a 28.7% lead (59536 vs 42441), and integer math is close behind at 28% (44019 vs 31690). Physics tests show a 29% gap (1637 vs 1163).

Data-oriented tasks also favor the Ultra 9. Data compression scores 186521 versus 146143, a 21.6% lead. Data encryption is 21.4% higher (14141 vs 11119). Extended instructions tests show a 15.8% advantage (15613 vs 13143). Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 9 by 22.4% (22622 vs 17551). The multithread PassMark test shows a 22.9% gap (19810 vs 15272).

The single-thread PassMark results are the closest of the entire comparison, with the Ultra 9 scoring 4274 and the Core 5 scoring 4021, a difference of only 5.9%. This suggests that for purely single-threaded, lightly threaded tasks, the two processors are nearly equivalent, with the Ultra 9 holding only a slight edge.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy. The Core 5 315 averages 18188, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ultra 9 288V averages 23219, which lands it in the 76th percentile. The Core 5's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F, Intel Core i7-9700, Intel Core i7-1365U, and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, all with average scores within 0.1% of the Core 5. The Ultra 9's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-11900F, AMD EPYC 4124P, AMD Ryzen 7 5800H, and Intel Core Ultra 7 266V, with deltas of only 0.2% to 0.3%. This places the Ultra 9 in a higher performance tier altogether.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node but diverge significantly in their design philosophies and origins. The Core 5 315 is built by Intel and uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Ultra 9 288V is manufactured by TSMC and uses the Lunar Lake architecture. This foundry difference could explain some of the performance characteristics, but the architectural choices are more revealing.

The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. Its base clock is 1.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Ultra 9 288V also has no multithreading, with 8 cores and 8 threads, but starts at a higher 3.30 GHz base clock and reaches 5.10 GHz boost. The higher clocks on the Ultra 9 are likely a major factor in its single-thread performance advantage, despite the Core 5's competitive boost frequency.

Cache hierarchies are quite different. The Core 5 315 lists L1 cache as 192 KB, L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared. The Ultra 9 288V lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 2.5 MB per core, and L3 as 12 MB shared. The per-core L2 allocation on the Ultra 9 potentially gives each core more dedicated fast memory, while the larger 12 MB shared L3 could benefit workloads that access common data.

Memory support is another clear differentiator. The Core 5 315 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X. The memory bus is single-channel on the Core 5 versus dual-channel on the Ultra 9. This translates to a stark difference in memory bandwidth: the Core 5 delivers 59.7 GB/s, while the Ultra 9 delivers 136.5 GB/s. That is a 2.3x bandwidth advantage for the Ultra 9, which could heavily influence the data compression and encryption benchmark results.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 315 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 288V uses PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The newer Gen 5 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though the Core 5 has more total lanes.

Integrated graphics are distinct as well. The Core 5 315 features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 9 288V uses the Arc 140V. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the relative GPU performance cannot be quantified here, but the architectural difference suggests the Ultra 9's Arc solution is a higher-tier design.

The Ultra 9 288V is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 5 315 does not list a series. The Ultra 9 has a release date of 2024-09-23, while the Core 5 315 is newer, with a release date of 2026-04-15. The Core 5 315 also has a launch MSRP of $340, which is the only price-related data point in the database for either part. The Ultra 9 288V has no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 23219, compared to the Intel Core 5 315's 18188. The Ultra 9 also sits at a higher percentile, ranking in the 76th percentile versus the Core 5's 72nd.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Core 5 315 wins?

A: Yes, the Core 5 315 wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, scoring 12981 against the Ultra 9 288V's 10178. This is a 27.5% advantage and represents the only head-to-head win for the Core 5 out of 17 tests.

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

A: The gap varies by test. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 9 288V leads by a substantial 39%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the lead narrows to 6.1%. In PassMark single-thread tests, the Ultra 9 is ahead by only 5.9%.

Q: What are the differences in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 9 288V has a dual-channel memory bus and delivers 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 5 315 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. The Ultra 9 also only supports LPDDR5X, whereas the Core 5 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: No. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 9 288V has a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz, compared to the Core 5 315's 4.40 GHz. The Ultra 9 also has a higher base clock at 3.30 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

Specification Differences

The database records several distinct specification differences between the two processors. The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ at 1.50 GHz versus 3.30 GHz, and boost clocks differ at 4.40 GHz versus 5.10 GHz. The thermal design power (TDP) is listed as 15 for the Core 5 and 30 for the Ultra 9.

The sockets are different: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 and Intel BGA 2833 for the Ultra 9. The codenames are Wildcat Lake and Lunar Lake respectively. The Ultra 9 lists its architecture as Lunar Lake and its series as Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 5 lists neither architecture nor series.

The foundry differs, with Intel producing the Core 5 and TSMC producing the Ultra 9. Cache configurations are not directly comparable, as the Core 5 lists L1 as 192 KB, L2 as 2.5 MB, and L3 as 6 MB shared, while the Ultra 9 lists L1 as 192 KB per core, L2 as 2.5 MB per core, and L3 as 12 MB shared.

Memory support includes both DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core 5, versus LPDDR5X only for the Ultra 9. The memory bus is single-channel for the Core 5 and dual-channel for the Ultra 9. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s. PCIe configuration is Gen 4 with 6 lanes for the Core 5 and Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Ultra 9.

Integrated graphics are listed as Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for the Core 5 and Arc 140V for the Ultra 9. Release dates differ, with the Core 5 released on 2026-04-15 and the Ultra 9 on 2024-09-23. The Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $340, while the Ultra 9 has no launch MSRP listed. The part numbers also differ, with the Core 5 listed as SAEFC and the Ultra 9 as SRPMSSRPMWQ5JTQ5JUQ5KW.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy, with the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V leading in 16 of 17 head-to-head tests. Its advantages span single-core performance, multi-core performance in most tests, memory bandwidth, and every PassMark workload. The Ultra 9's higher base and boost clocks, dual-channel memory, and larger cache configuration support these results.

The Intel Core 5 315 is not without merit. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core victory is significant, and its single-thread PassMark scores are within 5.9% of the Ultra 9. For workloads that resemble the R23 multi-core rendering test, the Core 5 315 demonstrates a capability that the Ultra 9 cannot match. The Core 5 also has a lower TDP of 15 versus 30, which could be relevant for thermally constrained mobile designs.

The average benchmark scores place the Ultra 9 in a higher performance bracket. The Ultra 9's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-11900F and AMD Ryzen 7 5800H, while the Core 5's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-9700 and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U. This suggests the Ultra 9 competes with desktop-class parts from previous generations, while the Core 5 aligns with more modest mobile processors.

Neither processor is unlocked for overclocking, and both are listed as Active in production status. The Core 5 315 is a newer release with a 2026 date, potentially indicating a later generation design, but the benchmark data does not support a performance advantage over the older Ultra 9.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the clear winner for almost all recorded workloads. It dominates in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests, all single-core tests, and the entire PassMark suite. The largest margins are in prime number finding (42.6% ahead), floating point math (28.7%), integer math (28%), and physics (29%). These are compute-intensive tasks that benefit from the Ultra 9's higher clock speeds and dual-channel memory bandwidth.

For data-centric tasks like compression and encryption, the Ultra 9's 136.5 GB/s bandwidth appears to provide a substantial edge, with leads of 21.6% and 21.4% respectively. The extended instructions test also favors the Ultra 9 by 15.8%, indicating better support for specialized instruction sets.

The Intel Core 5 315 wins only in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with a 27.5% advantage. This is a rendering workload that scales with sustained multi-core performance. The Core 5's 6 cores and 6 threads, combined with its 6 MB shared L3 cache, apparently handle this specific test more efficiently than the Ultra 9's 8 cores and 8 threads. The reason for this anomaly is not directly visible in the specification data, but it suggests the Wildcat Lake architecture has a particular strength in long-duration, heavily threaded rendering tasks.

In terms of platform support, the Core 5 315 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, which is double the lane count of the Ultra 9's 4 lanes, though on an older standard. The Core 5 also supports DDR5 memory, which the Ultra 9 does not. For systems requiring those specific features, the Core 5 might be the only option, despite its lower benchmark scores.

The single-thread efficiency results are the closest comparison point. With a 5.9% gap in PassMark single-thread scores, the two processors are nearly indistinguishable for lightly threaded applications. This could make the Core 5 315 a viable choice for tasks that do not heavily utilize multiple cores, especially given its lower TDP.

The Ultra 9 288V is the performance leader by a wide margin in most metrics and should be the default choice for users prioritizing speed in the workloads represented by the database. The Core 5 315 is the specialist, with a unique multi-core rendering win and a more flexible memory support profile.