Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core 7 150U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture: the Intel Core 5 221E wins every single recorded comparison against the Intel Core 7 150U, 17 wins to zero. The margins are substantial across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, with the largest gaps appearing in heavily parallel tasks.

The most dramatic difference shows up in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 221E scores 25933 against 8883 for the Core 7 150U, a 191.9% advantage. This is nearly triple the performance. The single-core R23 result tells a similar story, but with a smaller gap: 3661 versus 1875.5, a 95.2% lead. That means the Core 5 221E delivers almost double the single-thread performance in this test, which is remarkable given the Core 7 150U has a higher boost clock.

Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern. The multi-core score of 10891 for the Core 5 221E versus 5248 for the Core 7 150U represents a 107.5% advantage. Single-core R20 shows the Core 5 221E at 1537 against 740, a 107.7% lead. In Cinebench R15, the margins compress somewhat but remain decisive: multi-core 2613 versus 1505.5 (73.6% ahead), single-core 368 versus 254 (44.9% ahead).

PassMark results reinforce the trend. The Core 5 221E leads by 198.3% in find prime numbers (173 versus 58), by 130.7% in integer math (117813 versus 51057), and by 129.7% in floating point math (79028 versus 34405). Data compression shows a 104.4% advantage (324285 versus 158622), while data encryption is 91.6% ahead (19205 versus 10025). Extended instructions score 18216 versus 8748, a 108.2% lead. Physics tests show 2230 versus 1012, a 120.4% margin, and random string sorting lands at 37686 versus 18269, a 106.3% advantage.

The multi-threaded PassMark score of 30510 versus 14700 represents a 107.6% lead. The smallest margin in the entire dataset appears in PassMark single-thread, where the Core 5 221E scores 4147 against 3508, an 18.2% advantage. Even here, the Core 5 221E holds a clear edge, but this result shows that in purely single-threaded integer work, the Core 7 150U is comparatively competitive.

Looking at the broader database context, the Core 5 221E sits at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40144. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 at 40081 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 at 40048 (0.2% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 9 270 at 40246 (0.3% ahead). The Core 7 150U, by contrast, holds the 71st percentile with an average score of 17395, placing it near the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 at 17333 (0.4% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 3 210 at 17321 (0.4% behind). The performance gap between the two Intel parts is roughly the same as the gap between their respective rival clusters.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for raw performance: the Intel Core 5 221E is in a different class. It wins every benchmark, and in most tests the margin exceeds 90%. The Core 7 150U cannot match it in any measured workload, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded.

The Core 5 221E is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing computational throughput. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25933 places it far beyond the Core 7 150U's 8883, and its PassMark multi-thread score of 30510 more than doubles the 14700 of the Core 7 150U. For rendering, compilation, data processing, or any CPU-bound task, the Core 5 221E delivers decisively higher performance.

The Core 7 150U does close the gap somewhat in single-threaded PassMark, where the 18.2% difference is the smallest margin recorded. However, this does not change the overall picture. The Core 5 221E still wins, and its single-thread Cinebench scores show a much larger advantage, 95.2% in R23 and 107.7% in R20.

The Core 7 150U's only practical advantages appear outside raw performance: it is a mobile part with a 15 TDP, versus the 65 TDP of the Core 5 221E, and it uses a BGA socket rather than Socket 1700. For a system with strict power or thermal limits, the Core 7 150U may fit where the Core 5 221E cannot. But on benchmark results alone, the Core 5 221E is the superior processor without qualification.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, while the Core 7 150U uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-U codename. Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, so the manufacturing node is identical.

The core configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core 7 150U has 10 cores and 12 threads. This core and thread advantage explains much of the multi-threaded performance gap. The Core 5 221E also has a larger L3 cache, 24 MB shared versus 12 MB shared for the Core 7 150U. L1 cache is the same at 80 KB per core, but L2 cache differs: 2 MB per core for the Core 5 221E versus 1.25 MB per core for the Core 7 150U.

The memory support is similar, with both parts supporting DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Core 5 221E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core 7 150U has no bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory support also differs: the Core 5 221E supports ECC, the Core 7 150U does not.

PCIe capabilities are not equal. The Core 5 221E offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 7 150U offers PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. This gives the desktop part both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 150U uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Iris Xe part is likely the stronger integrated GPU, but no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database, so the comparison cannot be quantified.

The Core 5 221E has a die size of 257 mm², while the Core 7 150U has no die size recorded. The release dates show the Core 5 221E launching in January 2025 and the Core 7 150U in January 2024. Both parts are currently listed as Active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The Core 5 221E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 7 150U has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Core 7 150U boosts higher, yet loses every single-threaded benchmark, which indicates the architectural and cache differences outweigh the clock advantage.

TDP is a major differentiator. The Core 5 221E draws 65 W, while the Core 7 150U draws 15 W. That is a 4.3x difference in thermal design power, which explains why the Core 7 150U targets mobile systems while the Core 5 221E targets desktop systems.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core 7 150U uses Intel BGA 1744. The BGA socket indicates the Core 7 150U is soldered to the motherboard, whereas the Socket 1700 part is replaceable. The market segments reflect this: the Core 5 221E is listed as Desktop, the Core 7 150U as Mobile.

The Core 5 221E has a launch MSRP of $232. The Core 7 150U has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The part numbers differ: SRQDVQ659 for the Core 5 221E and SRMYP for the Core 7 150U.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 7 150U has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 5 221E scores 25933 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 7 150U scores 8883, a 191.9% advantage for the Core 5 221E.

Q: Does the Core 7 150U win any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the Core 5 221E winning all 17 benchmark comparisons, with the Core 7 150U recording zero wins.

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

A: The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the Core 5 221E scores 4147 and the Core 7 150U scores 3508, an 18.2% difference.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configurations. The Core 5 221E also supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 150U does not.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboards?

A: No. The Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core 7 150U uses Intel BGA 1744. The Core 7 150U is a mobile BGA part, while the Core 5 221E is a desktop socketed part.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 221E wins in every measured performance category. Its largest advantages come in heavily multi-threaded workloads: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 191.9% ahead, PassMark find prime numbers at 198.3% ahead, and PassMark integer math at 130.7% ahead. These results make it the clear choice for rendering, video encoding, scientific computing, compilation, and any workload that scales across many threads.

The Core 5 221E also dominates in single-threaded performance, despite the Core 7 150U's higher 5.40 GHz boost clock. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 95.2% advantage, and R20 single-core shows 107.7%. Only in PassMark single-thread does the margin shrink to 18.2%, but the Core 5 221E still wins.

The Core 7 150U has no benchmark wins, so its usefulness comes strictly from non-performance attributes. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or low-power mobile designs, and its BGA 1744 socket means it is integrated into compact laptops and mini-PCs. The Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units likely provides better integrated graphics performance than the UHD Graphics 730 of the Core 5 221E, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded to confirm this.

For a desktop builder with power and cooling budget available, the Core 5 221E is the obvious pick. It also offers ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, which the Core 7 150U lacks. For a mobile system constrained to 15 W, the Core 7 150U is the only one of the two that fits the socket and power envelope, so it wins by default in that specific use case.

The data shows a clean separation: the Core 5 221E is a high-performance desktop processor, while the Core 7 150U is a low-power mobile processor. They are not competitors in the same market segment, and the benchmark results reflect that hierarchy. Anyone comparing them should decide based on the system form factor and power limits first, then performance.