Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a lopsided contest. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 315 manages just two narrow victories. The two wins for the Core 5 315 come in the PassMark single-thread metrics, where it scores 4021 against 4005 for the Ultra X7 368H, a margin of 0.4 percent. Every other benchmark in the database shows the Ultra X7 368H delivering substantially higher scores.

The largest gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Ultra X7 368H scores 321, which is 65.1 percent ahead of the Core 5 315's score of 112. Integer math shows a similar pattern, with the Ultra X7 368H scoring 88083 against 31690, a 64 percent advantage. Floating point math follows, with the Ultra X7 368H at 105681 versus 42441, a 59.8 percent lead.

Cinebench results are consistent across all three versions of the test. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra X7 368H scores 28221 against 12981 for the Core 5 315, a 54 percent difference. The single-core R23 test shows the Ultra X7 368H at 3984 versus 1832, again a 54 percent advantage. The R20 and R15 tests show the same 54 percent delta in both multicore and single-core runs, confirming that the performance gap is uniform across rendering workloads.

Data compression and encryption also favor the Ultra X7 368H heavily. PassMark data compression shows 312927 for the Ultra X7 368H versus 146143 for the Core 5 315, a 53.3 percent lead. Data encryption shows 25228 versus 11119, a 55.9 percent gap. Extended instructions score 25669 against 13143, a 48.8 percent difference, which is the smallest margin among the Ultra X7 368H wins but still a decisive advantage.

The multithread PassMark score places the Ultra X7 368H at 32956 versus 15272, a 53.7 percent lead. Physics simulation shows 2857 against 1163, a 59.3 percent gap. Random string sorting delivers 38093 versus 17551, a 53.9 percent difference. The only area where the Core 5 315 edges ahead is the PassMark single-thread test, and even there the margin is just 0.4 percent, which falls within typical measurement variation.

The average benchmark score in the database reflects this dominance. The Ultra X7 368H sits at 40518, while the Core 5 315 sits at 18188. The percentile ranking shows the Ultra X7 368H in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 315 lands in the 72nd percentile. For comparison, the Core 5 315's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 9274F at an average score of 18189, the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18180, and the Intel Core i7-1365U at 18177. The Ultra X7 368H's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 7 253PE at 40557, the Intel Core 5 223PE at 40585, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H at 40431.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node and both come from Intel's foundry, but the underlying designs diverge significantly. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. The Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture and codename, falling into the Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) generation.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 5 315 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Ultra X7 368H provides 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading but with nearly three times the physical core count. Base clocks show the Ultra X7 368H starting at 2.00 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 315. Boost clocks extend to 5.00 GHz for the Ultra X7 368H and 4.40 GHz for the Core 5 315.

Cache layouts are structured differently. The Core 5 315 lists 192 KB of L1 cache and 2.5 MB of L2 cache, with 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra X7 368H lists 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, with 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core specification for the Ultra X7 368H suggests a different cache hierarchy design, and the L3 allocation is three times larger.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X only, over a dual-channel bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s. The memory bandwidth advantage for the Ultra X7 368H is substantial and likely contributes to its lead in data-intensive benchmarks.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 5 315 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes. The Ultra X7 368H uses PCIe Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes. The newer PCIe generation on the Ultra X7 368H offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though with fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics are distinct. The Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Ultra X7 368H uses the Arc B390. The socket also differs: the Core 5 315 fits Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra X7 368H fits Intel BGA 2540, meaning the two are not interchangeable in a system.

Thermal design power differs by 10 watts. The Core 5 315 is rated at 15 watts, while the Ultra X7 368H is rated at 25 watts. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are classified as mobile market segments with active production status.

Release dates place the Ultra X7 368H earlier, with a release date of January 2026, while the Core 5 315 arrived in April 2026. The Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340, while the Ultra X7 368H has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518, while the Intel Core 5 315 has an average score of 18188.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 315 win any benchmarks against the Ultra X7 368H?

A: Yes, the Core 5 315 wins the PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, scoring 4021 against 4005 for the Ultra X7 368H, a 0.4 percent advantage.

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 Ultra X7 368H scores 321 versus 112 for the Core 5 315, a 65.1 percent lead.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports hyperthreading.

Q: Which processor offers higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra X7 368H offers 153.6 GB/s over a dual-channel LPDDR5X bus, while the Core 5 315 offers 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Are the two processors built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use a 3 nm process node from Intel's foundry, and both are active production mobile parts.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes the choice straightforward for anyone prioritizing compute performance. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is ahead in every rendering test, every PassMark compute test except one narrow single-thread result, and delivers roughly double the average benchmark score. Its 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel memory, and 5.00 GHz boost clock position it clearly above the Core 5 315 across the board.

The Core 5 315 does have a few points in its favor. The single-thread PassMark score is marginally higher, and the 15-watt TDP suggests lower power draw than the 25-watt Ultra X7 368H. The Core 5 315 also supports DDR5 memory in addition to LPDDR5X, which may be relevant for certain system designs. Its launch MSRP is $340, while the Ultra X7 368H has no recorded launch MSRP.

For applications that scale with core count, multithreaded throughput, or memory bandwidth, the Ultra X7 368H is the clear selection from the data. The 54 percent lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and the 53.7 percent lead in PassMark multithread are decisive margins. For workloads that depend primarily on single-thread performance, the two processors are effectively tied, with the Core 5 315 holding a 0.4 percent edge that is unlikely to be perceptible.

The percentile rankings reinforce the separation. The Ultra X7 368H sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 315 sits in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for each processor in the database are comparable in average score but do not cross over between the two tiers. The data indicates that the Ultra X7 368H belongs to a higher performance class, and the Core 5 315 belongs to a more modest one.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 315 | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 6 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc B390 |

| Release Date | April 2026 | January 2026 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | Not recorded |