Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every single recorded test, 17 out of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Core 5 220H does not record a single victory in any multi-core, single-core, or specialized workload measurement. The scale of the advantage is substantial across all categories, with the largest gaps appearing in heavily parallelized workloads.

In multi-threaded rendering, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers 5,981 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core, a 69.3% advantage over the Core 5 220H's 1,835 points. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core: 21,198 versus 7,812, a 63.1% delta. The widest multi-core gap appears in Cinebench R23, where the Core Ultra 9 reaches 39,684 points against 11,198, putting it 71.8% ahead. These results confirm that the 24-core configuration provides a commanding lead in sustained rendering workloads.

Single-core performance also favors the Core Ultra 9, but by a smaller margin. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the scores are 340 versus 262, a 22.9% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,992 against 1,102, a 63.2% delta, while Cinebench R23 single-core records 2,356 versus 1,853, a 21.3% advantage. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,951 for the Core Ultra 9 compared to 3,405 for the Core 5 220H represents a 31.2% lead. The higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz on the Core Ultra 9, versus 4.90 GHz on the Core 5, explains part of this single-core edge.

The specialized PassMark workloads show the Core Ultra 9's dominance in every category. Integer math scores 164,839 versus 73,555, a 55.4% advantage. Floating-point math shows a 74.4% gap: 201,773 against 51,671. Extended instructions see 51,290 versus 14,642, a 71.5% delta. Data compression reaches 658,724 versus 247,921, a 62.4% advantage, while data encryption records 50,008 versus 15,216, a 69.6% gap. Prime number finding is the largest relative difference at 84.2%, with scores of 519 versus 82.

Memory-intensive and system-level tests follow the same pattern. PassMark multithread scores 59,439 versus 21,884, a 63.2% advantage. Physics simulation records 3,387 versus 1,478, a 56.4% delta. Random string sorting reaches 80,327 versus 28,438, a 64.6% lead. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 sits at 79,574, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 220H averages 28,574, landing in the 80th percentile. The Core Ultra 9's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF with an average score of 79,371, a 0.3% difference, and the AMD EPYC 7413 at 80,041, a 0.6% gap. The Core 5 220H sits close to the AMD EPYC 7203P at 28,583 (0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS at 28,549 (0.1% delta).

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the substantially stronger processor in every measured dimension. For workloads that depend on multi-core throughput, rendering, encryption, compression, or heavy mathematical computation, the Core Ultra 9 delivers between 55% and 84% more performance depending on the test. Its 95th percentile ranking versus the Core 5's 80th percentile places it in a different performance class entirely.

The Intel Core 5 220H remains a viable option for systems where the workload is lighter and the platform requirements are more modest. Its 12 cores and 16 threads handle everyday tasks and moderate multi-threading with acceptable results, as shown by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11,198. However, the benchmark data does not indicate any scenario where it outperforms the Core Ultra 9. Even in single-threaded tests, where the gap is smallest, the Core Ultra 9 still leads by over 21%.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, with its 24 cores and 24 threads, is the choice for demanding mobile workstations, content creation, and heavy parallel compute. The Core 5 220H suits thinner, lighter laptops or systems where the 45 W TDP and BGA 1744 socket are preferred, provided the user accepts the lower performance ceiling. The recorded data offers no reason to prefer the Core 5 on performance grounds alone.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 220H boosts to 4.90 GHz.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 scores 519 versus 82 for the Core 5, a difference of 84.2%.

Q: What is the smallest performance difference between the two?

A: The smallest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra 9 scores 2,356 versus 1,853 for the Core 5, a 21.3% difference.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79,574 and sits in the 95th percentile. The Core 5 220H averages 28,574 and sits in the 80th percentile.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Core 5 220H uses 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses 24 cores and 24 threads. The base clocks are identical at 2.70 GHz, but the boost clocks differ: 4.90 GHz for the Core 5 and 5.50 GHz for the Core Ultra 9. Thermal design power is higher on the Core Ultra 9 at 55 W, versus 45 W for the Core 5. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 5 uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114. The Core Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 5 does not.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 supports DDR5 only. The Core Ultra 9 lists a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 has no recorded bandwidth figure. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 9 but not on the Core 5. PCIe lane counts differ as well: the Core Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are different: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU on the Core 5, and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Core Ultra 9. The Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $342, while the Core Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP. The release dates differ, with the Core 5 released earlier and the Core Ultra 9 listed with a later release date.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is significant. The Core 5 220H is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, using a 10 nm process node from Intel's foundry. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process node from TSMC. It contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Its cache is larger at every level: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 has no recorded transistor count or die size.

The foundry difference is notable: Intel fabricates the Core 5, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 9. The Core Ultra 9's 3 nm node represents a more advanced manufacturing process than the 10 nm node used for the Core 5. The Core Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 does not. The integrated graphics differ in architecture and execution unit count: the Core 5 uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 EUs, while the Core Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EUs. The Core Ultra 9 belongs to the Arrow Lake-HX generation, while the Core 5 belongs to the Raptor Lake Refresh generation.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its largest advantages come in heavily parallel workloads: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 71.8% lead, PassMark extended instructions a 71.5% lead, and PassMark floating-point math a 74.4% lead. Prime number finding, at 84.2% ahead, is the most extreme example of its multi-threaded superiority. Data compression and encryption also favor the Core Ultra 9 substantially, with 62.4% and 69.6% gaps respectively. For users running rendering, scientific computation, encryption, or compression tasks, the Core Ultra 9 is the stronger choice by a large margin.

The Intel Core 5 220H does not win any recorded benchmark. Its best relative performance comes in single-threaded tests, where the gap narrows to around 21% to 31%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1,853 against 2,356 for the Core Ultra 9. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 3,405 against 4,951. The Core 5's lower TDP of 45 W versus 55 W may be preferable for thermally constrained designs, but the benchmark data does not show any performance scenario where it overtakes the Core Ultra 9. The Core 5's strengths are its lower power envelope, support for DDR4 memory, and smaller platform footprint, all of which are specification-level advantages rather than benchmark wins.