Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 135H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into distinct personalities. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H takes 12 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 220H wins 5. That raw count, however, hides a clearer story: the Core 5 220H dominates the older Cinebench R15 suite, while the Core Ultra 5 135H sweeps most PassMark workloads and the newer R23 multi-core test.

The Core Ultra 5 135H is the multi-threaded workload specialist. Its wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (11,875.5 vs 11,198, a 6.1% margin), PassMark multi-thread (22,422 vs 21,884, a 2.5% margin), and PassMark floating point math (54,867 vs 51,671, a 6.2% margin) point toward sustained parallel compute. The data also shows a notable edge in prime number finding, where the Ultra 5 135H scores 89 versus 82, an 8.5% advantage. For workloads that hammer integer or floating-point pipelines across many cores, the Ultra 5 135H is the safer choice.

The Core 5 220H counters with single-core dominance in the Cinebench lineage. It wins R15 single-core (262 vs 244, a 6.9% margin), R23 single-core (1,853 vs 1,700, an 8.3% margin), and R15 multi-core (1,835 vs 1,718, a 6.4% margin). The R23 single-core gap is the largest single-score delta in either direction across the entire head-to-head set. Applications that rely on lightly threaded performance, such as older games or legacy productivity tools, would favor the Core 5 220H.

The remaining wins split narrowly. The Core 5 220H takes data encryption (15,216 vs 15,026, a 1.2% margin) and integer math (73,555 vs 73,509, a 0.1% margin, essentially a tie). The Core Ultra 5 135H counters with data compression (251,651 vs 247,921, a 1.5% margin), extended instructions (15,028 vs 14,642, a 2.6% margin), random string sorting (28,980 vs 28,438, a 1.9% margin), and single-thread PassMark (3,521 vs 3,405, a 3.4% margin). The R20 tests are nearly dead even: the Ultra 5 135H leads both multi-core and single-core by just 0.3%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design generations, and the data reflects that divergence. The Core Ultra 5 135H uses the Meteor Lake architecture on a 7 nm process node, while the Core 5 220H uses the Raptor Lake architecture (more specifically Raptor Lake-H) on a 10 nm node. Both are built by Intel, but the process difference is significant: the Ultra 5 135H packs more transistors into a smaller area, which likely explains its efficiency in multi-threaded PassMark tests.

Core counts differ meaningfully. The Ultra 5 135H has 14 cores and 18 threads, while the Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. This two-core, two-thread advantage helps the Ultra 5 135H in workloads that scale with parallelism, such as the PassMark multi-thread test and Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core 5 220H compensates with a higher boost clock: 4.90 GHz versus 4.60 GHz on the Ultra 5 135H. That 0.3 GHz boost advantage shows up clearly in the R23 single-core result.

Base clocks tell a different story. The Ultra 5 135H runs at 3.60 GHz base, while the Core 5 220H sits at 2.70 GHz base. Yet the Core 5 220H has a higher TDP of 45 watts versus 28 watts for the Ultra 5 135H. This suggests the Core 5 220H can sustain higher clocks under load, trading power for performance, while the Ultra 5 135H is designed for efficiency.

Cache hierarchies are similar but not identical. Both share 18 MB of L3 cache and 2 MB of L2 per core. The L1 cache differs: 112 KB per core on the Ultra 5 135H versus 80 KB per core on the Core 5 220H. The integrated graphics also differ: the Ultra 5 135H has Arc Xe-LPG with 96 execution units, while the Core 5 220H has Iris Xe Graphics with 80 EU. Memory support is a notable split: the Ultra 5 135H lists DDR5 with bandwidth dependent on the motherboard (measured at 89.6 GB/s), while the Core 5 220H supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory and neither supports ECC.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Core 5 220H comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 1,853 versus 1,700 for the Ultra 5 135H, an 8.3% advantage. This is a decisive margin for a single-threaded workload, and it aligns with the Core 5 220H's higher boost clock. The R15 tests also favor the Core 5 220H: multi-core at 1,835 versus 1,718 (a 6.4% gap) and single-core at 262 versus 244 (a 6.9% gap). These older Cinebench versions appear to respond well to the Raptor Lake architecture's clock speed.

The Ultra 5 135H's biggest win is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 89 versus 82, an 8.5% edge. This test is heavily integer-bound and multi-threaded, favoring the Ultra 5 135H's extra cores. The floating point math test also shows a strong 6.2% margin (54,867 vs 51,671). In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 135H leads by 6.1% (11,875.5 vs 11,198), demonstrating that its core advantage outweighs the Core 5 220H's clock advantage in sustained rendering workloads.

The PassMark single-thread tests show a 3.4% lead for the Ultra 5 135H (3,521 vs 3,405), which is interesting given the Core 5 220H's R23 single-core win. This suggests the two processors have different strengths depending on the instruction mix: PassMark single-thread favors the Ultra 5 135H's architecture, while Cinebench R23 single-core favors the Core 5 220H's clock speed.

The narrow margins are instructive. PassMark integer math is essentially a tie at 73,509 versus 73,555, a 0.1% difference favoring the Core 5 220H. Physics scores are similarly close at 1,482 versus 1,478, a 0.3% edge for the Ultra 5 135H. The R20 tests are also within 0.3%. These near-ties suggest that for many real-world workloads, the two processors are interchangeable, and the choice comes down to specific application sensitivities.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks overall?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H wins 12 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 220H wins 5.

Q: Is the Core 5 220H faster in single-core tasks?

A: It depends on the benchmark. The Core 5 220H wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 8.3% (1,853 vs 1,700) and R15 single-core by 6.9% (262 vs 244). However, the Ultra 5 135H wins PassMark single-thread by 3.4% (3,521 vs 3,405).

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core rendering?

A: The Ultra 5 135H leads Cinebench R23 multi-core by 6.1% (11,875.5 vs 11,198), but the Core 5 220H wins R15 multi-core by 6.4% (1,835 vs 1,718). The R20 multi-core test is nearly tied, with the Ultra 5 135H ahead by 0.3%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Ultra 5 135H has 14 cores and 18 threads, while the Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do they have the same amount of L3 cache?

A: Yes, both have 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB of L2 per core. The L1 cache differs: 112 KB per core on the Ultra 5 135H versus 80 KB per core on the Core 5 220H.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 5 220H boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Ultra 5 135H boosts to 4.60 GHz. The Ultra 5 135H has a higher base clock at 3.60 GHz versus 2.70 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 135H | Intel Core 5 220H |

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

| Cores | 14 | 12 |

| Threads | 18 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2049 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Architecture | Meteor Lake | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

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

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | Not specified |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 96EU | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU |

| Launch MSRP | $342 | $342 |

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a clear picture for different use cases. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H is the better choice for multi-threaded productivity and compute-heavy workloads. Its 6.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 6.2% lead in floating point math, and 8.5% lead in prime number finding make it the stronger option for rendering, scientific calculations, and data compression. The PassMark multi-thread score (22,422 vs 21,884) reinforces this, as does the 2.5% margin in that test. The extra two cores and two threads, combined with the smaller 7 nm process node, give it a structural advantage in parallel tasks.

The Intel Core 5 220H is the pick for lightly threaded applications that respond to raw clock speed. Its 8.3% margin in Cinebench R23 single-core is the largest single-suite win in the entire comparison, and its 6.9% lead in R15 single-core confirms the trend. For older software that relies on one or two threads, or for workloads that are latency-sensitive rather than throughput-bound, the Core 5 220H's 4.90 GHz boost clock is a tangible benefit. The 45 W TDP also suggests it can maintain higher clocks under sustained load, though at the cost of more power draw.

The near-ties in R20 (both within 0.3%) and integer math (0.1% apart) indicate that for general office work, web browsing, and typical consumer applications, the two processors will feel equivalent. The decision should hinge on the dominant workload. If the software scales across cores, the Ultra 5 135H's 12 benchmark wins, including the critical R23 multi-core and PassMark multi-thread tests, make it the data-backed choice. If single-thread speed is paramount, the Core 5 220H's Cinebench single-core victories are decisive. Both carry the same launch MSRP of $342, so the choice comes down to workload profile rather than cost. The database suggests the Ultra 5 135H is the more versatile processor overall, but the Core 5 220H is not a compromise for clock-sensitive tasks.