Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core 7 250H Comparison
Intel Core 5 221E
Core 7 250H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core 7 250H
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core 5 221E dominates this head-to-head comparison, taking 14 of the 17 recorded benchmark wins. Its advantages are most pronounced in single-threaded Cinebench workloads, where it leads by as much as 89.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Core 5 221E also wins decisively in multi-core Cinebench R23 testing with a 56.6% margin, indicating that its Bartlett Lake architecture delivers substantially better sustained performance in rendering tasks.
The Intel Core 7 250H claims only three wins, all of them narrow. It takes Cinebench R15 multi-core by 17%, and it edges out the Core 5 221E in PassMark single-thread testing by a single point in both recorded variants of that test. The 250H's R15 multi-core victory is notable because it represents the only Cinebench multi-core test where the mobile chip comes out ahead, but the margin does not carry over to newer Cinebench versions.
For integer-heavy workloads, the Core 5 221E shows consistent superiority. PassMark integer math scores 117813 versus 99100, an 18.9% gap. Floating-point math shows a similar pattern at 79028 versus 65094, a 21.4% advantage. Prime number finding delivers the second-largest margin of any test at 63.2%, with scores of 173 versus 106. These results indicate the desktop-oriented Core 5 221E is the stronger choice for computational workloads that stress raw arithmetic throughput.
The Core 5 221E also wins all of the PassMark utility tests: data compression by 6.9%, data encryption by 5.5%, extended instructions by 5.2%, and random string sorting by 10.4%. PassMark physics favors the 221E by 22.3%, and PassMark multi-thread testing shows a 12.9% advantage. The overall average benchmark score reflects this pattern: the Core 5 221E averages 40144 points versus 35728 for the Core 7 250H, a difference of roughly 12.4%.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?
A: The Intel Core 5 221E scores 3661 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Core 7 250H scores 1931. The 221E leads by 89.6%, which is the largest margin of any benchmark in the comparison.
Q: Does the Core 7 250H win any multi-core benchmarks?
A: Yes, the Core 7 250H wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with a score of 3147 versus 2613 for the Core 5 221E, a 17% advantage. However, the Core 5 221E wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by 12.3% and Cinebench R23 multi-core by 56.6%.
Q: How do the two processors compare in PassMark single-thread performance?
A: The scores are effectively tied. The Core 5 221E records 4147 and the Core 7 250H records 4148 in both PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread tests. The delta is 0%, making this the closest benchmark in the dataset.
Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?
A: The Core 5 221E has an average benchmark score of 40144, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 7 250H averages 35728, placing it in the 85th percentile. The 221E holds a roughly 12.4% advantage in average score.
Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?
A: The Intel Core 5 221E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 7 250H does not. Both processors support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration.
Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor?
A: The Core 5 221E's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 7700, which has an average score of 40081 and a delta of 0.2%. The Core 7 250H's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350, with an average score of 35719 and a delta of 0%.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The single largest performance gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Core 5 221E scores 3661, while the Core 7 250H scores 1931, giving the 221E an 89.6% advantage. This is a dramatic difference in a test that measures per-core efficiency, and it suggests the 221E's higher 5.20 GHz boost clock combined with its Bartlett Lake design delivers substantially better single-threaded execution than the 250H's 5.40 GHz boost clock in the Raptor Lake-H architecture.
Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the second-largest margin at 56.6%. The Core 5 221E records 25933 points, while the Core 7 250H records 16561. Both processors have 14 cores and 20 threads, so this gap reflects differences in clock behavior, power delivery, and thermal management rather than core count. The 221E's 65 W TDP versus the 250H's 45 W TDP likely explains part of this divergence, as the desktop part can sustain higher clocks under load.
Prime number finding delivers a 63.2% margin in favor of the Core 5 221E, with scores of 173 versus 106. This workload is highly sensitive to instruction efficiency and clock speed, and the 221E's advantage here parallels its Cinebench R23 single-core lead. Floating-point math shows a 21.4% gap (79028 versus 65094), and integer math shows an 18.9% gap (117813 versus 99100). These PassMark results confirm that the 221E's advantages extend beyond rendering workloads into general computational tasks.
The Core 7 250H's Cinebench R15 multi-core win at 3147 versus 2613 is its largest victory. Notably, the 250H also wins both PassMark single-thread tests by a single point (4148 versus 4147), implying that in lightly threaded PassMark workloads, the two processors are functionally identical. The 250H's third win in PassMark singlethread mirrors that result exactly.
The mid-range Cinebench tests show a different pattern. Cinebench R20 multi-core favors the Core 5 221E at 10891 versus 9697, a 12.3% margin. Cinebench R20 single-core favors the 221E at 1537 versus 1368, a 12.4% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core gives the 221E a 23.5% advantage at 368 versus 298. These results indicate that the 250H's R15 multi-core win is an outlier rather than a consistent trend.
PassMark utility tests all favor the Core 5 221E. Data compression scores 324285 versus 303269 (6.9%), data encryption scores 19205 versus 18206 (5.5%), extended instructions score 18216 versus 17318 (5.2%), and random string sorting scores 37686 versus 34136 (10.4%). PassMark physics shows a 22.3% gap at 2230 versus 1824, and PassMark multi-thread shows a 12.9% gap at 30510 versus 27030.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ most obviously in their sockets. The Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core 7 250H uses Intel BGA 1744. This reflects their market segments: the 221E is a desktop processor, and the 250H is a mobile processor. The 221E's TDP is 65 W, while the 250H's TDP is 45 W, meaning the desktop part consumes more power but also has more thermal headroom.
Base and boost clocks differ in opposite directions. The Core 5 221E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 7 250H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The 250H boosts 0.20 GHz higher, but the 221E sustains a 0.20 GHz higher base frequency. The benchmark data indicates the 221E's higher base clock is more consequential for sustained workloads.
Memory bandwidth figures differ. The Core 5 221E lists 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Core 7 250H does not report a bandwidth figure in the database. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. ECC memory support is exclusive to the Core 5 221E.
PCIe lane counts differ. The Core 5 221E provides 16 lanes of Gen 5 PCIe from the CPU, while the Core 7 250H provides 8 lanes. Both use Gen 5 technology, but the desktop part offers double the lane count. Integrated graphics also differ: the 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU.
Release dates and launch MSRP values differ. The Core 5 221E launched on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $232. The Core 7 250H launched on 2024-12-17 with a launch MSRP of $502. Both processors are currently marked as Active in production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.
Architecture Differences
The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Core 7 250H uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename and belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. Both are built on a 10 nm process node by Intel, and both have 14 cores and 20 threads.
Cache configurations are identical across the two parts. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This means the performance differences observed in benchmarks cannot be attributed to cache capacity differences. The die size is recorded for the Core 5 221E at 257 mm², while no die size is listed for the Core 7 250H. Neither processor has a 3D V-Cache option.
The architecture difference is primarily generational. Bartlett Lake represents a newer desktop-focused design, while Raptor Lake Refresh represents an iterative update to the mobile Raptor Lake-H line. The benchmark results indicate that the newer Bartlett Lake design extracts more performance from the same core and cache configuration, particularly in single-threaded workloads where the 221E leads by margins from 23.5% to 89.6% across Cinebench tests.
The integrated graphics differ significantly. The Core 7 250H's Iris Xe Graphics 96EU is a more capable integrated GPU than the Core 5 221E's UHD Graphics 730, which aligns with the mobile processor's role in systems that may lack discrete graphics. The desktop 221E is more likely paired with a discrete GPU, so its simpler integrated solution is less consequential.
The Verdict
The data clearly favors the Intel Core 5 221E for compute-heavy workloads. It wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, holds a 12.4% average score advantage, and leads by massive margins in Cinebench R23 single-core (89.6%) and multi-core (56.6%). Its wins in PassMark integer math, floating-point math, and prime number finding confirm that its advantages are not limited to a single application type. The 221E also offers ECC memory support, 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and a lower launch MSRP of $232.
The Intel Core 7 250H is the better choice only in specific scenarios. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core win at 17% shows it can outperform in certain legacy multi-threaded tests. Its single-thread PassMark scores are effectively tied with the 221E at 4148 versus 4147. The 250H also provides Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, which is a stronger integrated GPU, and a higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its 45 W TDP makes it suitable for mobile platforms, and it launched with an MSRP of $502.
The percentile rankings reflect the overall gap. The Core 5 221E sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 250H sits in the 85th percentile. The 221E's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700, trails by only 0.2% in average score, placing the 221E in competitive company. The 250H's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350, matches it exactly at 0% delta.
For desktop users building systems that prioritize rendering, computation, and data processing, the Core 5 221E is the stronger processor according to the recorded benchmarks. For mobile users who need a balanced integrated graphics solution and can accept lower multi-core performance in newer Cinebench versions, the Core 7 250H remains a functional option, but the data does not support choosing it for raw CPU performance. The single-thread tie in PassMark is the only area where the two processors can be considered equivalent.