Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison
Intel Core 5 315
Core Ultra 9 386H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H
FAQ
Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark average score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H records an average benchmark score of 43210, while the Intel Core 5 315 scores 18188. The Ultra 9 sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 5 sits in the 72nd percentile.
Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins with a score of 20547 against 12981 for the Intel Core 5 315, a difference of 36.8 percent.
Q: What is the single-thread performance gap in PassMark?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 4218 in PassMark single-thread, only 4.7 percent ahead of the Intel Core 5 315 at 4021. This is the smallest margin between the two chips in any recorded test.
Q: Which processor shows the largest performance advantage in any benchmark?
A: The largest gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 341 versus 112 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 67.2 percent advantage.
Q: What memory configuration does each processor support?
A: The Intel Core 5 315 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses a dual-channel memory bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?
A: The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads.
The Verdict
The recorded data draws a clear line between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every single benchmark in the comparison set. It does not lose a single head-to-head test. The Intel Core 5 315 fails to claim a single win in any of the 17 recorded comparisons.
The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H belongs in systems that need heavy multicore throughput, sustained compute, and high memory bandwidth. Its 16 cores, dual-channel memory, and PCIe Gen 5 support position it as the processor for demanding mobile workloads. The Intel Core 5 315, with 6 cores and a single-channel memory bus, serves a different segment: lighter mobile devices where the priority is a compact platform. Its launch MSRP is $340.
The benchmark data shows that the Ultra 9 386H delivers roughly 2.4 times the average benchmark score of the Core 5 315. The Core Ultra 9 386H also ranks near desktop-class competitors, with the Intel Core i9-12900 just 0.7 percent behind and the Intel Core i9-12900KF 0.9 percent behind. The Core 5 315 sits close to the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, with a 0.1 percent difference.
For users who need maximum compute in a mobile platform, the Ultra 9 386H is the clear selection. For ultraportable designs where power draw and physical footprint matter more than raw throughput, the Core 5 315 offers a functional baseline, but the data shows a massive performance chasm between the two.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H dominates the Intel Core 5 315 across every workload category in the database. The smallest victory comes in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 scores 4218 against 4021, a 4.7 percent margin. This indicates that both architectures have similar per-core efficiency, but the Ultra 9 still holds the edge.
The multicore deltas are far more pronounced. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 3223 versus 1308, a 59.4 percent advantage. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 12820 against 5452, a 57.5 percent gap. Cinebench R23 multicore narrows the relative margin to 36.8 percent, with scores of 20547 and 12981, but the absolute difference remains substantial.
Single-core Cinebench results follow a similar pattern. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 303.5 for the Ultra 9 against 184 for the Core 5, a 39.4 percent gap. Cinebench R20 single-core records 1809 versus 769, a 57.5 percent difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2071.5 versus 1832, an 11.6 percent margin.
PassMark integer math delivers one of the larger gaps: 87284 versus 31690, a 63.7 percent advantage for the Ultra 9. Floating-point math follows at 108527 versus 42441, a 60.9 percent difference. PassMark physics shows 3028 against 1163, a 61.6 percent gap. The prime number test produces the largest discrepancy at 67.2 percent, with scores of 341 and 112.
Data-oriented workloads reinforce the trend. PassMark data compression scores 352365 for the Ultra 9 versus 146143 for the Core 5, a 58.5 percent gap. Data encryption shows 27150 versus 11119, a 59 percent difference. Extended instructions score 29138 versus 13143, a 54.9 percent margin. Random string sorting shows 42135 versus 17551, a 58.3 percent gap.
The PassMark multithread test records 35399 for the Ultra 9 against 15272 for the Core 5, a 56.9 percent advantage. Across all 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every one. The Core 5 315 posts zero wins.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Core 5 315 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip uses simultaneous multithreading.
Base clock speeds differ: the Core 5 315 runs at 1.50 GHz, while the Ultra 9 386H runs at 2.10 GHz. Boost clocks also differ: 4.40 GHz for the Core 5 315 and 4.90 GHz for the Ultra 9 386H.
Thermal design power differs as well. The Core 5 315 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 watts. The socket changes between the two: the Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540.
Memory support differs in channel count and bandwidth. The Core 5 315 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 386H uses a dual-channel memory bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. Neither supports ECC memory.
PCIe configuration differs. The Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.
Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics without a listed Xe core count.
Release dates differ. The Core 5 315 launched on April 15, 2026. The Ultra 9 386H launched earlier, on January 4, 2026. The Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340; the Ultra 9 386H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are active in production, and both have locked multipliers.
Cache configurations differ 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 Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.
Architecture Differences
The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 Wildcat Lake generation. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake codename and belongs to the Ultra 9 Panther Lake-H generation. The Ultra 9 386H carries the series name Core Ultra Series 3.
Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node and fabricated by Intel. The architecture names differ: the Core 5 315 does not have a listed architecture, while the Ultra 9 386H explicitly lists Panther Lake as its architecture.
The cache hierarchy reveals a structural difference. The Core 5 315 lists L1 and L2 cache as absolute totals, 192 KB and 2.5 MB respectively. The Ultra 9 386H lists L1 and L2 cache per core, at 192 KB and 2.5 MB per core. With 16 cores, the Ultra 9 386H carries substantially more aggregate L1 and L2 capacity, though the database does not provide summed totals. The shared L3 cache totals 6 MB on the Core 5 315 and 18 MB on the Ultra 9 386H.
The integrated graphics architecture differs. The Core 5 315 features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra 9 386H features Intel Xe3 Graphics without a listed core count. Both use the same Xe3 graphics generation, but the Core 5 315 explicitly limits the GPU to 2 Xe cores.
The platform positioning differs. Both target the mobile market segment. The Core 5 315 uses a smaller socket, fewer PCIe lanes, and a single-channel memory bus, consistent with a lower-power, more compact design. The Ultra 9 386H uses a larger socket, PCIe Gen 5, and dual-channel memory, consistent with a higher-performance mobile platform.
The production status for both is active. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers differ: SAEFC for the Core 5 315 and SA4R5Q9EH for the Ultra 9 386H. The Ultra 9 386H launched earlier and holds a higher percentile ranking, 88th versus 72nd. The average benchmark score difference, 43210 versus 18188, reflects the architectural and specification gap between the two designs.