Intel Core 5 315 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a decisive sweep for the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H across every recorded test, with the Intel Core 5 315 failing to secure a single win in 17 head-to-head comparisons. The largest gaps appear in heavily multithreaded and compute-intensive workloads, where the X9 388H’s higher core count and memory bandwidth translate into massive score advantages.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the X9 388H records 2955 points against 1308 for the Core 5 315, a 55.7% deficit for the smaller chip. The R20 multicore test widens the gap further: 13101 versus 5452, a 58.4% difference. Cinebench R23 multicore narrows the relative margin to 31.4%, with the X9 388H hitting 18911 and the Core 5 315 reaching 12981. Single-core results are closer but still favor the X9 388H, with a 16.7% lead in R23 single-core (2200.5 vs 1832) and a 40.5% lead in R15 single-core (309.5 vs 184).

PassMark workloads show the same pattern. The X9 388H delivers 361763 in data compression versus 146143, a 59.6% advantage. Data encryption shows a 61% gap (28490 vs 11119), while extended instructions scores are 56.1% higher (29943 vs 13143). Floating point math favors the X9 388H by 62.3% (112550 vs 42441), and integer math by 65.1% (90882 vs 31690). The largest single delta is in find prime numbers, where the X9 388H scores 358 versus 112, a 68.7% margin.

Multithread performance in PassMark shows a 58.5% gap (36811 vs 15272), and physics simulation shows a 63.9% gap (3226 vs 1163). Random string sorting is 60.1% higher on the X9 388H (44010 vs 17551). The narrowest margin is in PassMark single-thread tests, where the X9 388H leads by just 6.1% (4280 vs 4021). This suggests that per-core efficiency is similar, and the X9 388H’s dominance comes primarily from scaling across its larger core and thread configuration.

The average benchmark score reflects the overall chasm: the X9 388H averages 44466, while the Core 5 315 averages 18188. The X9 388H sits at the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the database, versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 315. The X9 388H’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.2% higher average score) and the Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3% lower), placing it in high-end desktop and mobile HX territory. The Core 5 315, by contrast, lands alongside the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700 with negligible deltas, indicating mid-range positioning.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share Intel’s 3 nm process node and Intel as the foundry, but their underlying designs diverge substantially. The Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, while the X9 388H is built on the Panther Lake architecture and sits in the Core Ultra Series 3 family, with the Panther Lake-H generation label.

Core counts differ sharply: the Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 5 315 and 2.10 GHz for the X9 388H, with boost clocks of 4.40 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. Thermal design power is 15 W for the smaller chip and 25 W for the larger one.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 5 315 has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The X9 388H lists 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core L1 figure for the X9 388H suggests a different allocation strategy across 16 cores. L3 capacity is three times larger on the X9 388H, which contributes to its advantage in workloads with large working sets.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The X9 388H supports only LPDDR5X but uses a dual-channel bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s. That bandwidth gap is central to the multithreaded score differences, especially in data compression and encryption tests. Neither chip supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The Core 5 315 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the X9 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The X9 388H’s newer PCIe standard offers higher per-lane throughput, though the Core 5 315 has more lanes available. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 315 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the X9 388H uses Arc B390. Both target the mobile market segment and are currently active in production.

The Core 5 315 carries a launch MSRP of $340 and uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, while the X9 388H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket and has no listed launch MSRP. The X9 388H was released on 2026-01-04, and the Core 5 315 followed on 2026-04-15. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 18911 versus 12981 for the Core 5 315, a 31.4% advantage. The R20 multicore gap is larger at 58.4% (13101 vs 5452).

Q: Is the single-thread performance gap as large as the multi-thread gap?

A: No. The single-thread gap is much smaller. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the X9 388H leads by 16.7% (2200.5 vs 1832), and in PassMark single-thread tests, the lead is just 6.1% (4280 vs 4021).

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The X9 388H 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 that supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The X9 388H’s bandwidth is roughly 2.6 times higher.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports additional threads per core.

Q: Where does each CPU rank among all CPUs in the database?

A: The X9 388H is at the 88th percentile, while the Core 5 315 is at the 72nd percentile. The X9 388H’s average benchmark score of 44466 places it near the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D and Intel Core i9-13950HX, while the Core 5 315’s 18188 average places it near the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700.

Q: Which workloads show the biggest performance difference?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the X9 388H leads by 68.7% (358 vs 112). Integer math (65.1%), physics (63.9%), and floating point math (62.3%) also show very large gaps.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the stronger processor in every measured category, with its greatest advantages in multithreaded, memory-intensive, and math-heavy workloads. The 16-core, 16-thread configuration, dual-channel memory at 153.6 GB/s, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache give it the resources to outpace the Core 5 315 by margins ranging from 6.1% in single-thread tests to 68.7% in prime number calculations. Its 88th percentile ranking and average score of 44466 confirm its position alongside high-end desktop and HX-series mobile parts.

The Core 5 315 is a more modest mobile processor. Its 6-core, 6-thread layout, single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s, and 6 MB of L3 cache cap its performance in heavily parallel tasks. It remains competitive in single-thread applications, where the X9 388H leads by only 6.1% in PassMark, but it falls far behind in anything that scales across cores or depends on memory throughput. Its 72nd percentile ranking and average score of 18188 place it in the company of older desktop parts like the Intel Core i7-9700 and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U.

For workloads that emphasize single-thread responsiveness and modest power draw, the Core 5 315 offers a lighter footprint with a 15 W TDP and a lower boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The X9 388H demands more power at 25 W but delivers substantially higher performance in exchange. The X9 388H also brings newer PCIe Gen 5 connectivity and a more capable integrated GPU in the Arc B390, while the Core 5 315 uses PCIe Gen 4 and Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The X9 388H is the clear choice for users who need maximum throughput in mobile form, while the Core 5 315 suits scenarios where lower power consumption and adequate single-core performance take priority.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 315 | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 6 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.40 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

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

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB | 3 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 | 2026-04-15 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $340 | None listed |

| Part number | SAEFC | SA4QWQ9EK |