Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of cache?

A: The Intel 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 Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 220H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H has an average benchmark score of 28574. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 ranks in the 95th percentile, while the Intel Core 5 220H ranks in the 80th percentile.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Intel Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different architectural generations and target different platform segments. The Intel Core 5 220H uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename, as part of the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, as part of the Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) generation.

Manufacturing processes differ substantially. The Core 5 220H is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 285 is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 285 also has a listed transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while no transistor or die size data is recorded for the Core 5 220H.

Core organization differs as well. The Core 5 220H provides 12 cores with 16 threads, meaning some cores support additional threads. The Core Ultra 9 285 provides 24 cores with 24 threads, indicating a one-to-one core-to-thread mapping with no additional threading per core.

Cache hierarchies scale with the core counts. The Core 5 220H provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3, which doubles the shared L3 capacity.

Memory support differs. The Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the Core Ultra 9 285 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, whereas no memory bandwidth figure is recorded for the Core 5 220H. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 9 285, but not on the Core 5 220H.

PCIe connectivity differs in lane count. The Core 5 220H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 5 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher TDP of 65 watts, compared to 45 watts for the Core 5 220H. The Core 5 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core 5 220H is classified as a mobile segment part, while the Core Ultra 9 285 is classified as a desktop segment part.

Both processors are currently Active in production status. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 220H is $342, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 9 285 is $579. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single recorded head-to-head benchmark, with zero wins recorded for the Intel Core 5 220H. The average benchmark score of 75488 for the Core Ultra 9 285 is more than 2.6 times the 28574 average of the Core 5 220H. The Core Ultra 9 285 also sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 80th percentile for the Core 5 220H.

The Core 5 220H is the mobile-oriented part. It is built on the older Raptor Lake architecture, uses a 45 watt TDP, supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and slots into a BGA 1744 socket. It delivers competent multi-threaded performance for its class, as indicated by its position among rivals like the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS and Intel Core i5-12600 in the database's nearest rival comparisons.

The Core Ultra 9 285 is the desktop flagship in this comparison. It uses the newer Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, supports ECC memory, provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and carries a 65 watt TDP. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, which places it in a much higher performance tier.

For users needing a mobile processor with the flexibility of DDR4 or DDR5 support, the Core 5 220H is the relevant choice. For users building a desktop system where maximum multi-threaded throughput, single-thread speed, and memory bandwidth matter, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the only part in this comparison that matches those requirements.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category.

• Cores: 12 (Core 5 220H) vs 24 (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Threads: 16 (Core 5 220H) vs 24 (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Base clock: 2.70 GHz (Core 5 220H) vs 2.50 GHz (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Boost clock: 4.90 GHz (Core 5 220H) vs 5.60 GHz (Core Ultra 9 285)
• TDP: 45 watts (Core 5 220H) vs 65 watts (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Socket: Intel BGA 1744 (Core 5 220H) vs Intel Socket 1851 (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Architecture: Raptor Lake (Core 5 220H) vs Arrow Lake (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Codename: Raptor Lake-H (Core 5 220H) vs Arrow Lake-S (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Generation: Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) (Core 5 220H) vs Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Process node: 10 nm (Core 5 220H) vs 3 nm (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Foundry: Intel (Core 5 220H) vs TSMC (Core Ultra 9 285)
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (Core 5 220H) vs 192 KB per core (Core Ultra 9 285)
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (Core 5 220H) vs 3 MB per core (Core Ultra 9 285)
• L3 cache: 18 MB shared (Core 5 220H) vs 36 MB shared (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 (Core 5 220H) vs DDR5 (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded (Core 5 220H) vs 102.4 GB/s (Core Ultra 9 285)
• ECC memory: false (Core 5 220H) vs true (Core Ultra 9 285)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 8 lanes CPU only (Core 5 220H) vs Gen 5, 20 lanes CPU only (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU (Core 5 220H) vs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Market segment: Mobile (Core 5 220H) vs Desktop (Core Ultra 9 285)
• Launch MSRP: $342 (Core 5 220H) vs $579 (Core Ultra 9 285)

Fields not recorded for either part include series for the Core 5 220H, transistor count and die size for the Core 5 220H, and total L3 cache for both.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates every recorded benchmark. The largest margin appears in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against 11198 for the Core 5 220H, a delta of -77.1% from the perspective of the Core 5 220H. That is the biggest single deficit in the entire comparison.

Single-core performance also favors the Core Ultra 9 285 heavily. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 versus 1853, a -73.2% delta. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows 696 versus 262, a -62.4% delta. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows 2901 versus 1102, a -62% delta.

Multi-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4933 versus 1835, a -62.8% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20556 versus 7812, a -62% delta. The Core Ultra 9 285 roughly doubles or triples the Core 5 220H output in these tests.

PassMark results reinforce the pattern. The smallest margin in the entire comparison appears in PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 against 3405, a -30.2% delta. This is still a decisive win, but it is the closest the Core 5 220H comes to matching its rival.

The largest PassMark margin appears in find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 459 versus 82, a -82.1% delta. Floating point math shows 194988 versus 51671, a -73.5% delta. Extended instructions show 45357 versus 14642, a -67.7% delta. Data encryption shows 46949 versus 15216, a -67.6% delta.

Other PassMark tests show consistent leads. Data compression scores 602121 versus 247921, a -58.8% delta. Integer math scores 164869 versus 73555, a -55.4% delta. Multi-thread scores 56602 versus 21884, a -61.3% delta. Physics scores 3598 versus 1478, a -58.9% delta. Random string sorting scores 73651 versus 28438, a -61.4% delta.

The data shows no benchmark category where the Core 5 220H takes the lead. Every recorded win count stands at 0 for the Core 5 220H and 17 for the Core Ultra 9 285 across all head-to-head entries.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every measured category. Its strongest relative advantages appear in multi-threaded integer workloads such as prime number calculation, where it leads by -82.1%, and in floating point math, where it leads by -73.5%. These results indicate that the 24-core Arrow Lake part scales well across parallel compute tasks.

The Core Ultra 9 285 also wins decisively in rendering workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a -77.1% delta, and Cinebench R20 multi-core shows -62%. These numbers indicate that the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers far higher throughput in CPU-bound rendering scenarios.

The Core Ultra 9 285 wins in single-thread performance as well, though by smaller margins. PassMark single-thread shows a -30.2% delta, which is the closest margin in the comparison. This indicates that even in lightly threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 9 285 maintains a clear advantage, but the gap narrows relative to heavily multi-threaded tasks.

The Intel Core 5 220H does not win a single recorded benchmark. However, its role in the comparison is defined by its platform characteristics rather than by benchmark victories. It is the mobile part with a 45 watt TDP, BGA 1744 socket, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. For mobile systems where the older Raptor Lake platform is appropriate, the Core 5 220H is the only one of the two that fits that socket and power envelope.

The Core Ultra 9 285 wins in desktop scenarios where ECC memory support, 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, and a 65 watt TDP are relevant. Its 5.60 GHz boost clock and 36 MB of shared L3 cache further support workloads that depend on high clock speeds and large cache footprints.

The data indicates that the Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior performer in all recorded tests. The Core 5 220H remains the relevant option only for mobile platforms that require its specific socket, TDP, and memory compatibility profile.