Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225F Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the Intel Core 5 221E and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F is not a simple matter of one part dominating across the board. The Core 5 221E takes 6 head-to-head wins, while the Core Ultra 5 225F claims 11. This division reflects fundamentally different design priorities that show up clearly in specific workload categories.

The Core 5 221E is the stronger choice for heavily threaded integer work and certain rendering tasks. Its most decisive victories come in Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core tests, where it leads by 57.5% and 93.4% respectively. It also wins in PassMark integer math by a massive 77.4%, data compression by 4.3%, and random string sorting by 1%. These are workloads that respond to raw core count and per-core cache depth.

The Core Ultra 5 225F, conversely, wins in instructions that benefit from newer microarchitecture and higher memory bandwidth. It leads in PassMark extended instructions by 35%, prime number finding by 50.9%, floating point math by 14.6%, and data encryption by 15.2%. It also edges ahead in Cinebench R15 multi-core (1.8%), R20 multi-core (1.5%), R20 single-core (1.5%), PassMark multithread (1.6%), physics (8.2%), and PassMark single-thread (5.7%).

The practical split is this: the Core 5 221E is better for long-running multi-threaded render loops and integer-heavy batch processing. The Core Ultra 5 225F is better for encryption, floating point simulation, and instruction-level parallel tasks that leverage its newer core design. Users with mixed workloads will see both parts win and lose depending on the exact application mix.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E has an average benchmark score of 40144, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F sits at 37313. The Core 5 221E also places in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 85th percentile for the Core Ultra 5 225F.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core 5 221E scores 25933, which is 57.5% higher than the Core Ultra 5 225F's 16467. This is the largest multi-core gap in the head-to-head data.

Q: What about single-thread performance?

A: The results are contradictory depending on the test. The Core 5 221E wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 93.4% (3661 vs 1893) and R15 single-core by 28.2% (368 vs 287). However, the Core Ultra 5 225F wins PassMark single-thread by 5.7% (4397 vs 4147).

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 221E supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 225F does not.

Q: Do they use the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 225F uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225F has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 221E has 89.6 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 225F also supports only DDR5, whereas the Core 5 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in this comparison is the Cinebench R23 single-core test. The Core 5 221E scores 3661 against the Core Ultra 5 225F's 1893, a 93.4% advantage. This is an outlier compared to the other single-core tests, where the Core Ultra 5 225F actually wins in PassMark single-thread (4397 vs 4147, a 5.7% lead). The discrepancy suggests that the R23 single-core result may reflect a specific test condition, but the recorded data is unambiguous: the Core 5 221E holds a massive lead in that particular benchmark.

In multi-core rendering, the Core 5 221E takes Cinebench R23 multi-core with 25933 vs 16467, a 57.5% margin. The Core Ultra 5 225F counters with narrow wins in R15 multi-core (2660 vs 2613, 1.8%) and R20 multi-core (11059 vs 10891, 1.5%). The R23 result is the outlier here, but it is the heaviest multi-threaded workload in the set, so it carries weight for render-farm style tasks.

The integer math result is another decisive win for the Core 5 221E. It scores 117813 in PassMark integer math, which is 77.4% higher than the Core Ultra 5 225F's 66417. This is the second-largest gap in the entire comparison and points to a fundamental advantage in core count and thread scheduling for integer-heavy code.

The Core Ultra 5 225F dominates the extension-heavy and encryption workloads. Its PassMark extended instructions score of 28027 is 35% higher than the Core 5 221E's 18216. In data encryption, it scores 22648 vs 19205, a 15.2% lead. The prime number test shows 352 vs 173, a 50.9% edge. Floating point math goes to the Core Ultra 5 225F at 92554 vs 79028, a 14.6% advantage.

The remaining wins are closer. PassMark multithread goes to the Core Ultra 5 225F at 31004 vs 30510, a 1.6% margin. Physics favors the Core Ultra 5 225F at 2430 vs 2230, an 8.2% lead. Data compression goes to the Core 5 221E at 324285 vs 310843, a 4.3% win. Random string sorting is nearly a tie, with the Core 5 221E ahead by 1% (37686 vs 37325).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. The Core Ultra 5 225F has a higher base clock at 3.30 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, but the Core 5 221E has a higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. Both have a 65 W TDP.

The sockets differ entirely: the Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 5 225F uses Intel Socket 1851. This means they are not interchangeable in a motherboard. The PCIe configuration also differs, with the Core 5 221E offering Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) and the Core Ultra 5 225F offering Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only).

Memory support is another split. The Core 5 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 225F supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth favors the Core Ultra 5 225F at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Core 5 221E.

Integrated graphics are present only on the Core 5 221E, which carries UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). This is a significant difference for systems that require a display output without a discrete GPU.

The launch MSRP for the Core 5 221E is $232, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 225F is $231. Both processors have locked multipliers and are currently listed as Active in production status. The Core 5 221E was released on 2025-01-12, and the Core Ultra 5 225F on 2025-01-06.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The Core 5 221E is built on Bartlett Lake, using a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Core Ultra 5 225F uses Arrow Lake (Arrow Lake-S), built on a 3 nm process node from TSMC. The process node difference is substantial, with the Core Ultra 5 225F using a significantly smaller transistor geometry.

The transistor counts differ as well. The Core Ultra 5 225F has 17,800 million transistors, while the Core 5 221E does not have a recorded transistor count in the database. The die sizes are similar: the Core 5 221E measures 257 mm², and the Core Ultra 5 225F measures 243 mm².

Cache organization is another major differentiator. The Core 5 221E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 225F has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 caches are larger on the Core Ultra 5 225F, but the total L3 is larger on the Core 5 221E.

The core count difference (14 vs 10) and thread count difference (20 vs 10) directly explain the multi-core results. The Core 5 221E has 4 more cores and 10 more threads, which helps in heavily parallel workloads. The Core Ultra 5 225F compensates with a newer microarchitecture, higher base clock, and larger per-core caches, which explains its wins in single-threaded PassMark tests and instruction-level parallel tasks.

The memory controller differs in both bandwidth and supported types. The Core Ultra 5 225F's 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is higher than the Core 5 221E's 89.6 GB/s, and its DDR5-only support allows for a more streamlined memory path. The Core 5 221E's dual DDR4/DDR5 support adds flexibility but caps bandwidth at a lower level.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear workload-based split. The Intel Core 5 221E is the better choice for multi-threaded rendering, integer math, and compression tasks. Its 14 cores and 20 threads deliver a 57.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 77.4% lead in PassMark integer math. It also supports ECC memory, has integrated graphics, and works with both DDR4 and DDR5, which makes it more flexible for workstation-style builds on Socket 1700.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F is the better choice for encryption, floating point simulation, and instruction-heavy workloads. Its 3 nm Arrow Lake architecture and higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s) produce leads of 35% in extended instructions, 50.9% in prime number finding, and 15.2% in data encryption. It also wins in PassMark single-thread by 5.7%, which suggests better per-core efficiency in certain tasks. However, its lack of integrated graphics and ECC support, plus its lower core count, limit its appeal for general-purpose desktop builds.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this split. The Core 5 221E averages 40144, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals like the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 (40081, 0.2% delta) and AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (40048, 0.2% delta). The Core Ultra 5 225F averages 37313, in the 85th percentile, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i9-13900HK (37425, -0.3% delta) and AMD Ryzen 7 7735H (37161, 0.4% delta).

The Core 5 221E sits in a slightly higher performance tier overall, but the Core Ultra 5 225F wins more individual tests. For users who prioritize rendering and integer throughput, the Core 5 221E is the data-backed selection. For users who prioritize encryption, floating point, and newer architecture features, the Core Ultra 5 225F is the stronger pick. The choice depends entirely on which workload category matters more.