Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core 7 160UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably one-sided comparison. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core 5 221E wins every single matchup. The largest margins appear in compute-heavy workloads, while the smallest edge shows up in single-threaded tests.

Starting with Cinebench results, the Core 5 221E dominates the multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 25,933 against the Core 7 160UL's 9,386, a 176.3% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 10,891 versus 3,942, again 176.3% ahead. The R15 multi-core result follows the same trend with 2,613 versus 946, a 176.2% delta. These consistent margins across all three Cinebench versions indicate a structural performance gap rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

Single-core Cinebench results show the same proportional gap. The Core 5 221E posts 3,661 in R23 single-core versus 1,325 for the Core 7 160UL, a 176.3% delta. R20 single-core shows 1,537 versus 556 (176.4% ahead), and R15 single-core shows 368 versus 133 (176.7% ahead). The consistency of these percentages across both single and multi-core tests suggests the per-core throughput difference is the dominant factor.

PassMark tests reveal even wider disparities in certain specialized workloads. The largest delta appears in find prime numbers, where the Core 5 221E scores 173 versus 50, a 246% advantage. Extended instructions show a 212.3% delta (18,216 versus 5,832), and random string sorting runs 218.2% ahead (37,686 versus 11,843). Floating point math delivers 79,028 versus 25,670, a 207.9% gap. Data compression shows 324,285 versus 108,953, a 197.6% delta.

The narrowest margin across the entire dataset appears in PassMark single-thread tests. The Core 5 221E scores 4,147 versus 3,391 for the Core 7 160UL, a 22.3% delta. This is dramatically smaller than the roughly 176% margins seen elsewhere. The single-thread result indicates the Core 7 160UL has competitive per-core architecture but is held back by other factors in multi-threaded and specialized workloads.

Integer math shows a 147.9% delta (117,813 versus 47,515), while data encryption runs 168.8% ahead (19,205 versus 7,146). Multithread performance in PassMark shows 30,510 versus 11,043, a 176.3% gap that mirrors the Cinebench multi-core results. Physics tests show 2,230 versus 819, a 172.3% delta.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 221E wins in every recorded benchmark category, so the analysis focuses on which workloads show the largest or smallest gaps. The data indicates the Core 5 221E is particularly strong in integer-heavy and specialized instruction workloads. Prime number finding, extended instructions, random string sorting, and floating point math all show deltas above 200%. These workloads benefit from the Core 5 221E's higher core count and larger cache configuration.

Data compression and encryption show deltas between 168% and 197%, indicating substantial but slightly smaller advantages. These workloads often scale with memory bandwidth and cache efficiency, areas where the Core 5 221E's 24 MB shared L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth provide clear benefits.

The Core 7 160UL shows its best relative performance in single-threaded PassMark tests, where the 22.3% delta is far smaller than any other category. This suggests the Core 7 160UL's architecture handles basic single-threaded operations reasonably well, though it still trails. The Core 7 160UL also comes closest in integer math at 147.9%, though this remains a substantial deficit.

The average benchmark score tells the broader story. The Core 5 221E averages 40,144 across all tests, while the Core 7 160UL averages 14,232. The Core 5 221E sits at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 7 160UL sits at the 69th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 221E include the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 (average score 40,081, 0.2% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 9 270 (average score 40,246, 0.3% ahead). The Core 7 160UL's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14,277, 0.3% ahead) and the Intel Core i5-10400F (14,185, 0.3% behind).

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the Intel Socket 1700 and the 10 nm process node, but their underlying designs differ substantially. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename and belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation.

Core counts diverge significantly. The Core 5 221E provides 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core 7 160UL offers 10 cores and 12 threads. This 4-core and 8-thread difference directly explains much of the multi-threaded benchmark gap. The Core 5 221E's base clock runs at 2.70 GHz, while the Core 7 160UL runs at 1.80 GHz. Both processors boost to 5.20 GHz.

Cache hierarchies differ in both per-core and shared allocations. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core for both processors. The L2 cache differs: the Core 5 221E provides 2 MB per core, while the Core 7 160UL provides 1.25 MB per core. The L3 cache shows a major difference: 24 MB shared on the Core 5 221E versus 12 MB shared on the Core 7 160UL. This double L3 allocation contributes to the Core 5 221E's advantage in cache-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

Power and thermal characteristics show a stark contrast. The Core 5 221E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core 7 160UL is rated at 15 watts. This 50-watt difference reflects the Core 7 160UL's positioning as a low-power part, though the benchmark data shows the performance cost of that efficiency target.

Platform connectivity differs as well. The Core 5 221E supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 160UL supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Memory support includes DDR4 and DDR5 for both, with dual-channel buses. The Core 5 221E lists 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the Core 7 160UL has no recorded bandwidth figure. ECC memory support is present on the Core 5 221E but absent on the Core 7 160UL.

Integrated graphics differ notably. The Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The latter is a more capable integrated GPU, which may matter for systems running without a discrete graphics card.

The die size is recorded as 257 mm² for the Core 5 221E, with no die size listed for the Core 7 160UL. Release dates differ by roughly nine months: the Core 7 160UL launched in April 2024, while the Core 5 221E launched in January 2025. Both processors carry locked multipliers and are marked as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Core 5 221E in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core 5 221E scores 25,933 versus 9,386 for the Core 7 160UL, a 176.3% advantage.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Core 7 160UL wins?

A: No. The Core 5 221E wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Core 5 221E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core 7 160UL has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses. The Core 5 221E also supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 160UL does not.

Q: How do the integrated GPUs compare?

A: The Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU.

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

A: The smallest delta is in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Core 5 221E scores 4,147 versus 3,391 for the Core 7 160UL, a 22.3% difference.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 221E | Intel Core 7 160UL |

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

| Cores | 14 | 10 |

| Threads | 20 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 1.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 15 W |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake-PS |

| Generation | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) | Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS) |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | Not recorded |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB per core | 1.25 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB shared | 12 MB shared |

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

| ECC Memory | Supported | Not supported |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU |

| Launch MSRP | $232 | Not recorded |

| Release Date | January 2025 | April 2024 |

| Part Number | SRQDVQ659 | Unknown |

Fields that match between the two include socket (Intel Socket 1700), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache (80 KB per core), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), market segment (desktop), production status (Active), and multiplier lock state (locked).

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core 5 221E outperforms the Intel Core 7 160UL in every recorded test, with margins ranging from 22.3% in PassMark single-thread to 246% in prime number finding. The average benchmark score of 40,144 for the Core 5 221E versus 14,232 for the Core 7 160UL places these processors in different performance tiers entirely.

The Core 5 221E's 87th percentile ranking versus the Core 7 160UL's 69th percentile confirms the gap extends beyond direct head-to-head tests. The Core 5 221E competes with AMD Ryzen 7-class processors, while the Core 7 160UL sits alongside lower-tier parts like the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C and the Intel Core i5-10400F.

Systems requiring sustained multi-threaded throughput should use the Core 5 221E. Its 14 cores, 20 threads, 24 MB L3 cache, and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth deliver roughly 176% higher multi-core scores across Cinebench versions and PassMark multithread tests. The 65-watt TDP supports consistent performance under load.

Systems prioritizing power efficiency should consider the Core 7 160UL. Its 15-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the Core 5 221E's 65 watts, and it still provides a 5.20 GHz boost clock. The Iris Xe Graphics 96EU integrated GPU offers more capable graphics output than the Core 5 221E's UHD Graphics 730, which could matter for basic display workloads without a discrete GPU.

The data does not support a scenario where the Core 7 160UL wins on performance grounds. Every recorded benchmark shows the Core 5 221E ahead, often by substantial margins. The Core 7 160UL's case rests on its power envelope and integrated graphics capabilities, both of which the benchmark scores do not directly measure. For compute-intensive tasks, the Core 5 221E is the only choice supported by the measurements.