Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison
Intel Core 5 220H
Core Ultra 7 356H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H
The Verdict
The benchmark data delivers a decisive outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins every single head-to-head comparison in the database, 17 wins to 0. The Core Ultra 7 356H posts an average benchmark score of 41215, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 220H averages 28574 and sits in the 80th percentile. The gap is not marginal; across Cinebench and Passmark tests, the Ultra 7 356H leads by margins ranging from 9.2% to 74.9%.
The Core 5 220H is positioned as the lower-tier mobile option. It uses the older Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, with 12 cores and 16 threads. Its boost clock reaches 4.90 GHz, the highest boost frequency between the two, yet that advantage does not translate into any benchmark victory. The Ultra 7 356H, built on Panther Lake at 3 nm, delivers superior results in every measured workload despite a lower boost clock of 4.70 GHz and a lower base clock of 1.90 GHz versus 2.70 GHz.
The verdict for system integrators and buyers is straightforward: the Core Ultra 7 356H is the stronger processor in all recorded metrics. The Core 5 220H remains a functional mobile chip, but it does not outperform its rival in any single test. The data shows no scenario where the Core 5 220H is the preferred choice based on performance alone. The Ultra 7 356H also carries a lower TDP of 25 watts compared to 45 watts for the Core 5 220H, meaning it delivers more performance while drawing less power according to the specification sheet.
Where Each One Wins
The Core Ultra 7 356H wins in every category. There is no benchmark in the database where the Core 5 220H comes out ahead. The largest margin for the Ultra 7 356H appears in Passmark find prime numbers, where it scores 327 versus 82, a 74.9% advantage. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 7 356H scores 2040 against 1853, a 9.2% lead.
Multi-core workloads show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 7 356H scores 3055 versus 1835, a 39.9% lead. In Cinebench R20 multicore, it scores 12153 versus 7812, a 35.7% lead. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 18395 versus 11198, a 39.1% lead. Passmark multithread shows a 35.6% advantage at 33978 versus 21884.
Single-core performance also favors the Ultra 7 356H, though by smaller margins. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 303 versus 262, a 13.5% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1715 versus 1102, a 35.7% lead. Passmark single-thread shows 4072 versus 3405, a 16.4% lead.
Specialized instruction workloads heavily favor the newer chip. Passmark extended instructions scores 27898 versus 14642, a 47.5% gap. Passmark floating point math scores 103128 versus 51671, a 49.9% gap. Passmark physics scores 2895 versus 1478, a 48.9% gap. Data encryption shows 26345 versus 15216, a 42.2% gap. Data compression shows 336177 versus 247921, a 26.3% gap. Integer math shows 83111 versus 73555, an 11.5% gap. Random string sorting shows 40990 versus 28438, a 30.6% gap.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 5 220H uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H refresh, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Core Ultra 7 356H uses Panther Lake, the Panther Lake-H generation, built on a 3 nm process, also at Intel. The process node difference is substantial: 10 nm versus 3 nm, which helps explain the efficiency advantage of the Ultra 7 356H despite its higher core count.
Core counts differ. The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both are mobile processors with the same thread count, but the Ultra 7 356H has four additional physical cores. The Ultra 7 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 product family, while the Core 5 220H has no series designation in the database.
Cache layouts differ across levels. The Core 5 220H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 356H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and the same 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 capacity is identical, but the per-core L1 and L2 allocations are larger on the Ultra 7 356H.
Memory support differs. The Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Core Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The Ultra 7 356H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 5 220H has no bandwidth figure in the database.
PCIe capability differs. The Core 5 220H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU-only lanes. The Core Ultra 7 356H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU-only lanes. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.
Sockets differ. The Core 5 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 7 356H uses Intel BGA 2540. These are physically incompatible platforms. The TDP rating differs as well: 45 watts for the Core 5 220H versus 25 watts for the Core Ultra 7 356H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.
The release dates differ. The Core 5 220H launched on 2024-12-17 with a launch MSRP of $342. The Core Ultra 7 356H launched on 2026-01-04 with no launch MSRP recorded. Both are listed as Active in production status and target the mobile market segment.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has an average benchmark score of 41215, while the Intel Core 5 220H averages 28574. The Ultra 7 356H also ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 80th percentile for the Core 5 220H.
Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?
A: The Ultra 7 356H leads by 39.9% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 35.7% in Cinebench R20 multicore, 39.1% in Cinebench R23 multicore, and 35.6% in Passmark multithread.
Q: Does the Core 5 220H win in any benchmark?
A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Core Ultra 7 356H winning all 17 recorded comparisons. The Core 5 220H records zero wins.
Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?
A: The Core 5 220H has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core Ultra 7 356H has a TDP of 25 watts, which is lower despite delivering higher performance in every recorded test.
Q: How do the process nodes compare?
A: The Core 5 220H is built on Intel's 10 nm process using Raptor Lake architecture. The Core Ultra 7 356H is built on Intel's 3 nm process using Panther Lake architecture.
Q: Do they use the same socket?
A: No. The Core 5 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, and the Core Ultra 7 356H uses Intel BGA 2540. They are not interchangeable.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The largest single margin in the entire comparison is Passmark find prime numbers. The Ultra 7 356H scores 327, the Core 5 220H scores 82, a 74.9% difference. This test amplifies the architectural gap between the 3 nm Panther Lake design and the older Raptor Lake part. The next biggest margin is Passmark floating point math at 49.9%, with the Ultra 7 356H scoring 103128 against 51671. Passmark physics follows at 48.9%, with scores of 2895 and 1478. Passmark extended instructions shows a 47.5% gap, with 27898 versus 14642.
Data encryption shows a 42.2% gap, with the Ultra 7 356H at 26345 and the Core 5 220H at 15216. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 39.9% gap, with 3055 versus 1835. Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 39.1% gap, with 18395 versus 11198. Cinebench R20 multicore and single-core both show 35.7% gaps, with scores of 12153 versus 7812 and 1715 versus 1102 respectively. Passmark multithread shows a 35.6% gap at 33978 versus 21884.
Passmark random string sorting shows a 30.6% gap, with 40990 versus 28438. Passmark data compression shows a 26.3% gap, with 336177 versus 247921. Passmark single-thread shows a 16.4% gap, with 4072 versus 3405. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 13.5% gap, with 303 versus 262. Passmark integer math shows an 11.5% gap, with 83111 versus 73555. The smallest margin is Cinebench R23 single-core at 9.2%, with 2040 versus 1853.
The pattern across all tests is consistent: the Ultra 7 356H leads in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, in integer and floating point math, in encryption and compression, and in physics simulations. The Core 5 220H has a higher boost clock at 4.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz, but that does not overcome the advantages of the newer architecture, larger core count, and larger per-core caches. The data confirms a generational leap rather than a close contest.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP ratings are 45 watts versus 25 watts.
The process node is 10 nm for the Core 5 220H and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 7 356H. The architecture is Raptor Lake versus Panther Lake. The socket is Intel BGA 1744 versus Intel BGA 2540.
Cache configurations differ at L1 and L2. The Core 5 220H has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core. The Core Ultra 7 356H has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. Both share 18 MB of L3 cache.
Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 5 220H, DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core Ultra 7 356H. The Ultra 7 356H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ: 8 Gen 5 CPU-only lanes for the Core 5 220H, 12 Gen 5 CPU-only lanes for the Ultra 7 356H.
Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units for the Core 5 220H, Intel Xe3 Graphics for the Ultra 7 356H. The release dates are 2024-12-17 and 2026-01-04. The Core 5 220H has a launch MSRP of $342; the Ultra 7 356H has no launch MSRP recorded. The part numbers are SRQ6SQ5MM and SA4RGQ9EU. Both are Active mobile processors with locked multipliers and no ECC support.