Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. Across all seventeen recorded tests, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus takes every single win. The Intel Core 5 315 does not secure a single head-to-head victory, making this a straightforward analysis of margin rather than outcome.

The largest gap appears in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 9 scores 164,839 against the Core 5's 31,690, a delta of -80.8% from the smaller chip's perspective. Floating point math shows a similar story: 201,773 versus 42,441, a -79% delta. These are the two most lopsided results in the entire dataset.

Cinebench multi-core results reinforce the trend. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 reaches 39,684 while the Core 5 manages 12,981, a -67.3% delta. The R20 multi-core test shows 21,198 versus 5,452, a -74.3% gap. R15 multi-core records 5,981 against 1,308, a -78.1% difference. The pattern is consistent: the Ultra 9 delivers roughly three to five times the multi-threaded throughput depending on the workload.

Single-threaded performance tells a more nuanced story. The Ultra 9 still wins, but the margins shrink considerably. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 9 scores 4,951 against 4,021, a -18.8% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,356 versus 1,832, a -22.2% gap. The single-core advantage is real but far less dramatic than the multi-core gap, which suggests the Core 5's architecture is comparatively competitive on a per-thread basis.

Data compression and encryption workloads show the Ultra 9 at 658,724 versus 146,143 (-77.8%) and 50,008 versus 11,119 (-77.8%) respectively. Extended instructions score 51,290 against 13,143, a -74.4% delta. Prime number finding records 519 versus 112, a -78.4% gap. Random string sorting comes in at 80,327 versus 17,551, -78.2%. Physics simulation in PassMark shows 3,387 against 1,163, a -65.7% delta.

The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 is 79,574, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 averages 18,188, sitting at the 72nd percentile. That percentile gap, from 72 to 95, encapsulates the overall performance distance between these two mobile processors. The Core 5's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9274F at 18,189 (0% delta), 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 Ultra 9's nearest rivals are substantially faster: the Intel Core i9-14900KF at 79,371 (0.3% delta), the AMD EPYC 7413 at 80,041 (-0.6%), the Intel Core i9-14900K at 79,097 (0.6%), and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X at 80,671 (-1.4%).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families built on different design philosophies. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus carries the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename and sits in the Core Ultra Series 2 lineup.

Both chips use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Core 5 is fabricated by Intel itself, while the Ultra 9 is produced by TSMC. The Ultra 9 also reports 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, figures that are simply not recorded for the Core 5 in the database.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Core 5 offers 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Ultra 9 provides 24 cores and 24 threads, also without extra threads per core, but with quadruple the physical core count. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 and 2.70 GHz for the Ultra 9. Boost clocks reach 4.40 GHz on the Core 5 and 5.50 GHz on the Ultra 9. Thermal design power differs by a wide margin: 15 watts versus 55 watts. The Ultra 9 consumes more power, but the data shows it converts that headroom into substantially higher performance.

Cache hierarchies reflect the different core counts. The Core 5 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 lists 192 KB per core for L1, 3 MB per core for L2, and 36 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference alone is sixfold in favor of the Ultra 9.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 5 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 9 supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 9 adds ECC memory support; the Core 5 does not.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Core 5 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra 9 uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics are also different: the Core 5 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units, while the Ultra 9 has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The Ultra 9 is multiplier-unlocked; the Core 5 is not. Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 5 versus Intel BGA 2114 for the Ultra 9.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. It wins PassMark single-thread 4,951 to 4,021, a -18.8% delta, and Cinebench R23 single-core 2,356 to 1,832, a -22.2% delta.

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

A: The Ultra 9 leads by wide margins across all multi-core tests. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 39,684 versus 12,981 (-67.3%), R20 shows 21,198 versus 5,452 (-74.3%), and R15 shows 5,981 versus 1,308 (-78.1%).

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the Core 5 315 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Core 5 315 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 9 supports dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which chip has ECC memory support?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports ECC memory. The Core 5 315 does not.

Q: How do the two compare in average benchmark score and percentile?

A: The Ultra 9 has an average benchmark score of 79,574 and sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 averages 18,188 and sits at the 72nd percentile.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves little room for ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus outperforms the Intel Core 5 315 in every single benchmark in the head-to-head set. The multi-core workloads show the largest gaps, with the Ultra 9 frequently scoring between three and five times higher depending on the test. Single-thread workloads are closer, with the Ultra 9 leading by roughly 19% to 22%, but the direction of the result never changes.

The Core 5 315 occupies the 72nd percentile in the database, placing it alongside desktop processors like the Intel Core i7-9700 and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U in average score. The Ultra 9 sits at the 95th percentile, comparable in average score to the Intel Core i9-14900KF and the Intel Core i9-14900K. That positions the Ultra 9 in an entirely different performance class.

The Ultra 9's advantages extend beyond raw compute. It offers dual-channel memory with higher bandwidth, ECC support, Gen 5 PCIe with more lanes, a larger shared L3 cache, and an unlocked multiplier. The Core 5 counters with a far lower 15-watt TDP, making it the more power-conscious option, and it supports LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5.

The launch MSRP for the Core 5 315 is $340. The Ultra 9 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 315 | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus |

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

| Series | None | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 24 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.40 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 6 MB shared | 36 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| 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 | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | SAEFC | SADSS |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every benchmark category in this comparison. It dominates in multi-core rendering, shown by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. It leads in data compression and encryption, in extended instruction workloads, in prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithreaded PassMark, physics simulation, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. There is no recorded workload in the head-to-head set where the Core 5 315 comes out ahead.

The Core 5 315 does have structural advantages that the benchmark scores do not directly capture. Its 15-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the Ultra 9's 55-watt TDP, which indicates a much smaller thermal footprint for thin-and-light mobile designs. It also supports LPDDR5X memory, which the Ultra 9 does not list. Its single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth are lower than the Ultra 9's dual-channel 102.4 GB/s, but they align with a lower-power platform.

The data suggests the Core 5 315 is positioned for efficiency-focused mobile devices where battery life and thermals matter more than peak throughput. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus is positioned for performance-focused laptops that can sustain a 55-watt thermal envelope and exploit 24 cores, Gen 5 PCIe, ECC memory, and an unlocked multiplier. Users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput, high memory bandwidth, or server-style features like ECC will find those only in the Ultra 9. Users who prioritize minimal power draw and a lighter platform will find the Core 5's 15-watt design more aligned with that goal, accepting the substantial performance trade-off shown in the benchmarks.