Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core 7 251E Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, which doubles the core count and doubles the thread count relative to the Core 5 220H.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H boosts up to 4.90 GHz. The Intel Core 7 251E boosts higher, reaching 5.60 GHz, a 0.70 GHz advantage in maximum single-core frequency.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 220H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, exactly half the amount of the Core 7 251E.

Q: What are the market segments for these chips?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H is a mobile processor, designed for laptops and portable systems. The Intel Core 7 251E is a desktop processor, targeting stationary systems.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel memory buses. However, the Core 7 251E has a rated memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the memory bandwidth figure for the Core 5 220H is not recorded in the database.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 220H does not support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 220H is built on Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename, belonging to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 7 (Bartlett Lake) generation. Both processors are manufactured by Intel on a 10 nm process node, and both use Intel as the foundry.

The core configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 220H pairs 12 cores with 16 threads, while the Core 7 251E pairs 24 cores with 32 threads. The Core 7 251E also carries a larger die size of 257 mm², whereas the die size for the Core 5 220H is not listed in the database. Both processors share the same per-core cache structure: 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache differs, with the Core 5 220H offering 18 MB and the Core 7 251E offering 36 MB.

The integrated graphics solutions differ as well. The Core 5 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core 7 251E uses UHD Graphics 770. PCIe support also differs: the Core 5 220H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 251E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The socket types are different, with the Core 5 220H using Intel BGA 1744 and the Core 7 251E using Intel Socket 1700.

The Core 7 251E supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 220H does not. The Core 7 251E also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core 5 220H has no bandwidth figure in the database. The Core 7 251E carries a higher thermal design power of 65 watts compared to 45 watts for the Core 5 220H. Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports unlocked overclocking. The production status for both is Active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain direct head-to-head benchmark entries comparing the Intel Core 5 220H against the Intel Core 7 251E. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and neither processor registers a win count in the comparison. This means the recorded data does not include paired test results for these two specific CPUs.

The Intel Core 5 220H has a full set of benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its Cinebench R15 multicore score is 1835, and its single-core score is 262. In Cinebench R20, it scores 7812 multicore and 1102 single-core. Cinebench R23 results show 11198 multicore and 1853 single-core. PassMark results include 247921 in data compression, 15216 in data encryption, 14642 in extended instructions, 82 in find prime numbers, 51671 in floating point math, 73555 in integer math, 21884 in multithread, 1478 in physics, 28438 in random string sorting, and 3405 in single-thread tests.

The Intel Core 7 251E has no benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its benchmark array is empty, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0. Consequently, a direct numerical comparison of the two processors using recorded test results is not possible. The data shows that the Core 5 220H has an average benchmark score of 28574, while the Core 7 251E has no average score available. The percentile ranking places the Core 5 220H at the 80th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 7 251E sits at the 50th percentile based on the recorded data.

For context, the nearest rivals to the Core 5 220H in the database include the AMD EPYC 7203P with an average score of 28583 and a delta of 0%, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS at 28549 with a delta of 0.1%, the Intel Xeon E-2436 at 28530 with a delta of 0.2%, and the Intel Core i5-12600 at 28646 with a delta of -0.3%. These figures indicate that the Core 5 220H sits within a narrow performance band around 28574, with the closest competitor being the EPYC 7203P at essentially a statistical tie.

The absence of benchmark data for the Core 7 251E means no exact score comparisons can be drawn between the two processors. The only quantitative distinctions available come from the specification fields, such as core count, clock speeds, cache capacity, and memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields in the database. The core count differs: 12 cores for the Core 5 220H versus 24 cores for the Core 7 251E. Thread counts differ correspondingly: 16 threads versus 32 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Core 5 220H at 2.70 GHz and the Core 7 251E at 2.10 GHz. Boost clocks differ, with the Core 5 220H at 4.90 GHz and the Core 7 251E at 5.60 GHz.

Thermal design power differs: 45 watts for the Core 5 220H versus 65 watts for the Core 7 251E. The socket differs: Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 5 220H versus Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 7 251E. The architecture field differs: Raptor Lake for the Core 5 220H, while the architecture field is null for the Core 7 251E. The codename differs: Raptor Lake-H versus Bartlett Lake. The generation differs: Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) versus Core 7 (Bartlett Lake).

L3 cache differs: 18 MB shared for the Core 5 220H versus 36 MB shared for the Core 7 251E. The die size is recorded only for the Core 7 251E at 257 mm². Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core 7 251E at 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory support differs: false for the Core 5 220H, true for the Core 7 251E. PCIe lane counts differ: 8 lanes for the Core 5 220H versus 16 lanes for the Core 7 251E, both Gen 5 CPU-only configurations.

Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU for the Core 5 220H versus UHD Graphics 770 for the Core 7 251E. Market segment differs: Mobile for the Core 5 220H versus Desktop for the Core 7 251E. Release dates differ: 2024-12-17 for the Core 5 220H versus 2025-01-12 for the Core 7 251E. Launch MSRP differs, with the Core 5 220H at $342 and the Core 7 251E at $384. Part numbers differ: SRQ6SQ5MM for the Core 5 220H and SRQDUQ657 for the Core 7 251E.

Fields that are the same include the manufacturer (Intel), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache per core (80 KB), L2 cache per core (2 MB), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (Dual-channel), multiplier unlocked status (false), and production status (Active). The average benchmark score field differs, with 28574 for the Core 5 220H and 0 for the Core 7 251E. The percentile field differs, with the Core 5 220H at the 80th percentile and the Core 7 251E at the 50th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 220H holds the advantage in the recorded benchmark data. It has a complete set of Cinebench and PassMark scores, an average benchmark score of 28574, and an 80th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores and an average score of 0, placing it at the 50th percentile. For any workload measured by the database, the Core 5 220H is the only one of the two with verified performance data.

The Intel Core 7 251E wins on raw specification counts. It offers double the cores and double the threads, which suggests an advantage in heavily parallel workloads if benchmark data existed to confirm it. It also provides a higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz versus 4.90 GHz, double the L3 cache at 36 MB versus 18 MB, and a higher memory bandwidth rating of 89.6 GB/s. The Core 7 251E also adds ECC memory support and double the PCIe lanes (16 versus 8), making it the more expandable platform on paper.

The market segment split is clear. The Core 5 220H is a mobile processor with a 45-watt TDP, suited for systems where power draw matters more than maximum core counts. The Core 7 251E is a desktop processor with a 65-watt TDP, paired with a larger die and more generous cache allocation.

The socket difference reinforces this split. The Core 5 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, a ball-grid array for soldered mobile installations. The Core 7 251E uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket format. The integrated graphics also differ by segment, with Iris Xe Graphics 80EU in the mobile part and UHD Graphics 770 in the desktop part.

For users prioritizing verified benchmark performance, the Core 5 220H is the only processor with measured results in the database. For users prioritizing core count, cache capacity, memory bandwidth, ECC support, and PCIe lane availability, the Core 7 251E leads on every one of those specification fields. The release dates place the Core 5 220H roughly one month earlier, with the Core 7 251E launching afterward at a higher launch MSRP.