Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins every single recorded head-to-head test against the Intel Core 5 315. Across 17 benchmark comparisons, the Core Ultra X7 358H claims all 17 victories, leaving the Core 5 315 with zero wins. The margins, however, vary considerably by workload type.

The largest single gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra X7 358H scores 337, while the Core 5 315 manages 112, a delta of 66.8% in favor of the Ultra part. This suggests a substantial advantage in integer-heavy, latency-sensitive workloads. Similarly, the PassMark integer math test shows a 61.9% delta, with the Ultra X7 scoring 83147 versus 31690 for the Core 5 315. Floating point math follows the same pattern: 103842 against 42441, a 59.1% gap. The physics test also shows a wide margin, 3021 versus 1163, a 61.5% delta.

The data compression and encryption tests reinforce the pattern. The Ultra X7 358H scores 332508 in data compression against 146143 for the Core 5 315, a 56% delta. Data encryption shows 26046 against 11119, a 57.3% delta. Random string sorting also favors the Ultra part substantially: 40357 versus 17551, a 56.5% delta. Extended instructions follow suit, with the Ultra X7 scoring 27274 and the Core 5 315 scoring 13143, a 51.8% delta.

Cinebench results show a similar hierarchy. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra X7 358H scores 3027 against 1308, a 56.8% delta. The R20 multicore test shows 12011 versus 5452, a 54.6% delta. R23 multicore narrows the relative gap somewhat: 18747 versus 12981, a 30.8% delta. This is the closest multicore result in the entire comparison, although the Ultra part still holds a clear lead.

Single-core performance tells a more nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra X7 scores 301.5 against 184, a 39% delta. R20 single-core shows 1695 versus 769, a 54.6% delta. R23 single-core shows 2080 versus 1832, an 11.9% delta. The PassMark single-thread tests show the smallest gap of all: 4124 versus 4021, a 2.5% delta. This indicates that while the Core Ultra X7 358H has superior per-thread performance in most tests, the gap narrows considerably in certain single-threaded workloads.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall positioning. The Core Ultra X7 358H has an average benchmark score of 40967, while the Core 5 315 sits at 18188. The Ultra part also ranks in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 315 ranks in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for each processor further contextualize these numbers. The Core 5 315 sits within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U and Intel Core i7-1365U, and within 0% of the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700. The Core Ultra X7 358H, by contrast, sits within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, and within 0.7% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the stronger processor in every measured benchmark. No recorded test shows the Core 5 315 ahead. The Ultra X7 358H delivers higher scores across Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests, PassMark math tests, data processing tests, and threading tests. Its 16 cores and 16 threads, compared to 6 cores and 6 threads on the Core 5 315, provide a structural advantage in parallel workloads. The Core Ultra X7 358H also has a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz against 4.40 GHz, and a higher base clock of 1.90 GHz against 1.50 GHz.

The Core 5 315 does have a lower TDP of 15 watts against 25 watts for the Ultra X7 358H. That thermal envelope difference may matter in specific system designs, but it does not translate into a performance win in any recorded benchmark. The Core 5 315 also has a launch MSRP of $340, while the Ultra X7 358H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The nearest rival data for each chip reinforces the tier difference. The Core 5 315 competes with older or lower-end parts like the Intel Core i7-9700 and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U. The Core Ultra X7 358H sits alongside newer Ryzen AI and Core Ultra 7 parts. The percentile ranks, 72nd versus 87th, place the Ultra part in a higher overall performance class.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins in every category measured. In multi-threaded workloads, it leads by margins ranging from 30.8% in Cinebench R23 multicore to 66.8% in PassMark find prime numbers. The 16-core, 16-thread configuration gives it a clear advantage in rendering, data compression, encryption, and physics simulation. The Cinebench R15 multicore score of 3027 against 1308, a 56.8% delta, and the R20 multicore score of 12011 against 5452, a 54.6% delta, both indicate strong scaling across cores.

In single-threaded workloads, the Ultra X7 still leads, but the margin shrinks. The PassMark single-thread score of 4124 against 4021 is only a 2.5% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows an 11.9% delta, with 2080 against 1832. These results indicate that the Core 5 315 is comparatively competitive in lightly threaded tasks, though it still trails.

The Core 5 315 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its advantages are structural rather than performance-based. It has a lower TDP of 15 watts, which may allow for simpler cooling solutions in thin-and-light laptops. Its integrated graphics are listed as Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390 graphics. The Core 5 315 also supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X only. The Core 5 315 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ultra X7 358H uses a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s. The memory bandwidth difference of roughly 2.57 times in favor of the Ultra part likely contributes to its wide margins in data-heavy tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

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

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 337 and the Core 5 315 scores 112, a delta of 66.8%.

Q: How close are the two processors in single-threaded performance?

A: The closest result is the PassMark single-thread test, where the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 4124 and the Core 5 315 scores 4021, a delta of 2.5%.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X only.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Core 5 315 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a dual-channel memory bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has an average benchmark score of 40967. The Core 5 315 has an average benchmark score of 18188.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ substantially in core configuration, cache layout, memory support, and platform features. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant. Both are built on a 3 nm process node at Intel foundry.

The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, which means no hyper-threading is active. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This core count difference directly explains the large multicore deltas in the benchmark data.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 5 315 has a total L1 cache of 192 KB, an L2 cache of 2.5 MB, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 358H lists L1 cache as 192 KB per core, L2 cache as 3 MB per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger shared L3 on the Ultra part, 18 MB versus 6 MB, provides more room for frequently accessed data across the 16 cores.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 315 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X only. The memory bus differs: single-channel on the Core 5 315 versus dual-channel on the Ultra X7 358H. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s for the Core 5 315 and 153.6 GB/s for the Ultra X7 358H. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count. The Core 5 315 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses PCIe Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 5 315 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Core Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Core 5 315 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Thermal design power differs: 15 watts for the Core 5 315 and 25 watts for the Core Ultra X7 358H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340 and a release date of April 15, 2026. The Core Ultra X7 358H has no recorded launch MSRP and a release date of January 4, 2026. Both processors are active in production status and target the mobile market segment.