Intel Core i3-1315U vs Intel Core Ultra 5 134U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 134U leads with an average benchmark score of 15910, while the Intel Core i3-1315U trails at 15022. This places the Ultra 5 at the 70th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 69th percentile for the i3.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The Core i3-1315U wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 3380 against 3063 for the Ultra 5, a 9.4% advantage. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 leads with 1576 versus 1323, a 19.1% gap.

Q: Which CPU is better for multi-threaded workloads?

A: It depends on the benchmark. The Ultra 5 wins PassMark multithread (12464 vs 11482, an 8.6% lead) and Cinebench R20 multicore (4725 vs 3937, a 20% lead). But the i3-1315U dominates Cinebench R23 multicore with 9374 versus 5572, a 40.6% margin.

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

A: The Core Ultra 5 134U has 12 cores and 14 threads, while the Core i3-1315U has 6 cores and 8 threads. Despite fewer cores, the i3 posts a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 4.40 GHz for the Ultra 5.

Q: Which chip has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Ultra 5 134U features 12 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 10 MB for the i3-1315U. The Ultra 5 also has a larger L2 cache per core at 2 MB versus 1.25 MB.

Q: How do integrated graphics differ between the two?

A: The Ultra 5 134U uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics, while the i3-1315U relies on UHD Graphics 64EU. Both have 64 execution units, but the architectures differ.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 5 134U is built on the Meteor Lake architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process node, whereas the Core i3-1315U uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process shrink gives the Ultra 5 a significant density advantage. The Meteor Lake design represents Intel’s newer tile-based approach, while Raptor Lake-U is an evolution of the prior hybrid architecture.

The socket situation differs: the Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2551, while the i3-1315U uses Intel BGA 1744. This means the two processors are not interchangeable in motherboards. The Ultra 5 supports DDR5 memory, with the specification noting that memory depends on the motherboard. The i3-1315U supports both DDR4 and DDR5, giving it broader memory compatibility across older and newer platforms.

Cache hierarchy diverges substantially. The Ultra 5 has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-1315U has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5’s larger per-core L2 and L1 caches suggest a design optimized for feeding more execution resources, while the i3’s smaller cache sizes reflect its older architecture.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ultra 5 packs Arc Xe-LPG 64EU, a newer GPU architecture, while the i3-1315U uses UHD Graphics 64EU. Both have identical execution unit counts, so any performance difference comes from the architectural improvements in the Xe-LPG design rather than raw EU count.

Power characteristics are notably different. The Ultra 5 has a TDP of 9 watts, while the i3-1315U has a TDP of 15 watts. This 6-watt difference positions the Ultra 5 as the more efficient part on paper, though the i3’s higher boost clock (4.50 GHz vs 4.40 GHz) suggests it can push performance harder when power and thermals allow.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 134U wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. It excels in compute-heavy integer and floating-point workloads. PassMark integer math shows a 36.3% advantage (51306 vs 37644), and floating-point math shows a 20% lead (32425 vs 27012). Prime number finding also favors the Ultra 5 by 36.6% (56 vs 41). These results indicate a strong ALU and FPU implementation that scales well with the additional cores.

The Ultra 5 also wins in encryption tasks, with PassMark data encryption at 8077 versus 7583, a 6.5% margin. Physics simulation favors the Ultra 5 significantly, with 883 versus 706, a 25.1% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core and multi-core both go to the Ultra 5, with 20% advantages in each (666 vs 555 and 4725 vs 3937 respectively). Cinebench R15 single-core is a landslide for the Ultra 5, scoring 221 versus 133, a 66.2% difference.

The Core i3-1315U wins 7 benchmarks. Its most dramatic victory is Cinebench R23 multicore, where it scores 9374 against 5572, a 40.6% lead. This is surprising given the i3’s lower core count, and it suggests that the Raptor Lake architecture’s efficiency in this specific workload is exceptional. The i3 also wins PassMark single-thread with 3380 versus 3063, a 9.4% margin, and Cinebench R15 multicore with 944 versus 894, a 5.3% edge.

The i3 takes several memory and string manipulation tests. PassMark random string sorting goes to the i3 at 14028 versus 13702, a 2.3% lead. Data compression slightly favors the i3 at 126436 versus 124771, only 1.3% apart. Extended instructions also edge toward the i3, with 7413 versus 7002, a 5.5% difference.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious split: the Ultra 5 has 12 cores and 14 threads, while the i3-1315U has 6 cores and 8 threads. This gives the Ultra 5 double the physical cores and a 75% thread advantage. The base clocks differ significantly, with the Ultra 5 at 700 MHz and the i3 at 1200 MHz. The boost clocks are closer, with the i3 at 4.50 GHz and the Ultra 5 at 4.40 GHz.

TDP is a 6-watt difference, with the Ultra 5 at 9 watts and the i3 at 15 watts. The socket designs are incompatible: BGA 2551 for the Ultra 5 versus BGA 1744 for the i3. Process nodes differ by 3 nm, with the Ultra 5 on 7 nm and the i3 on 10 nm. Cache sizes are uniformly larger on the Ultra 5: L1 at 112 KB versus 80 KB per core, L2 at 2 MB versus 1.25 MB per core, and L3 at 12 MB versus 10 MB shared.

Memory support shows the i3 accepts both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses and have identical PCIe configurations (Gen 4, 8 lanes, CPU only). Neither supports ECC memory. The integrated graphics differ by architecture, with Arc Xe-LPG 64EU on the Ultra 5 versus UHD Graphics 64EU on the i3, though both have 64 execution units. Release dates are about 11 months apart, with the i3 launching on 2023-01-03 and the Ultra 5 on 2023-12-13.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest single win for the Ultra 5 is Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 221 against the i3’s 133, a 66.2% advantage. This is the largest delta in any test and indicates a massive per-thread performance advantage in that specific benchmark. The next largest Ultra 5 wins are PassMark integer math at 36.3% (51306 vs 37644) and PassMark find prime numbers at 36.6% (56 vs 41). These three results show the Ultra 5’s strength in raw computational throughput per thread and in aggregate.

The i3’s most significant win is Cinebench R23 multicore, where it beats the Ultra 5 by 40.6% (9374 vs 5572). This is a peculiar result because in Cinebench R20 multicore, the Ultra 5 leads by 20% (4725 vs 3937). The reversal between R20 and R23 is notable, suggesting that the i3-1315U’s architecture handles the R23 workload’s specific rendering tasks more efficiently despite having fewer cores. The i3 also wins PassMark single-thread by 9.4% (3380 vs 3063), which aligns with its higher boost clock.

In the mid-range deltas, the Ultra 5 shows consistent 20% advantages in Cinebench R20 single-core (666 vs 555), Cinebench R20 multicore (4725 vs 3937), and PassMark floating-point math (32425 vs 27012). The Ultra 5 also leads in PassMark physics by 25.1% (883 vs 706) and PassMark multithread by 8.6% (12464 vs 11482).

Several benchmarks are close calls. PassMark data compression is nearly tied, with the i3 at 126436 and the Ultra 5 at 124771, a 1.3% difference. PassMark random string sorting is also tight, with the i3 at 14028 versus 13702, a 2.3% margin. Extended instructions are within 5.5% (7413 vs 7002). These narrow results suggest that memory bandwidth and latency-sensitive tasks are roughly comparable between the two chips.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Core Ultra 5 134U is the better-rounded processor for general computing workloads. It wins the majority of benchmarks (10 of 17) and holds advantages in integer math, floating-point math, encryption, physics, and multithreaded PassMark performance. Its 12-core, 14-thread configuration provides a solid foundation for parallel workloads, and the 7 nm process node gives it a power efficiency edge with a 9-watt TDP versus 15 watts for the i3. The launch MSRP is $332 for the Ultra 5 and $309 for the i3, a $23 difference that the performance results justify.

The Core i3-1315U is a specialist in certain scenarios. Its 40.6% Cinebench R23 multicore victory is striking, and the 9.4% PassMark single-thread win shows it can handle lightly threaded tasks with ease. The i3 also edges out the Ultra 5 in memory-oriented tests like random string sorting and data compression, though the margins are small. For buyers who prioritize R23 rendering performance or who need maximum single-thread responsiveness in legacy applications, the i3-1315U is the data-backed choice.

However, the Ultra 5’s overall benchmark profile is stronger. Its average benchmark score of 15910 places it above the i3’s 15022, and its 70th percentile ranking versus 69th confirms the slight edge. The Ultra 5’s nearest rivals include AMD Ryzen 5 40 (0.2% ahead) and AMD EPYC 9334 (0.2% behind), while the i3 sits near AMD EPYC 74F3 (0.7% ahead) and Intel Core i7-9750H (0.9% ahead). The Ultra 5’s position among more powerful rivals indicates it punches above its weight class.

The verdict from the recorded data is clear: for users who want a balanced mobile processor with strong multi-core capabilities, the Core Ultra 5 134U is the superior pick. For those who specifically need the i3’s Cinebench R23 performance or its higher single-thread PassMark score, the i3-1315U remains a capable alternative. The Ultra 5’s larger cache, newer architecture, and higher core count make it the more future-proof option, even with the i3’s occasional benchmark victories.