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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between the Intel Core 5 221E and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H. The Core 5 221E wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Core Ultra 5 225H takes 6 victories. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story about where each processor's strengths truly lie.

The most dramatic difference appears in Cinebench R23. The Core 5 221E scores 25933 in the multi-core test, which is 77.3% ahead of the Core Ultra 5 225H's 14629.5. The single-core gap is even more pronounced: 3661 versus 1969, a 85.9% advantage for the Core 5 221E. These are overwhelming margins that suggest a fundamental performance disparity in heavily threaded and lightly threaded rendering workloads alike.

Cinebench R15 and R20 follow a similar pattern, though with narrower gaps. The R15 multi-core test shows 2613 against 2397.5, a 9% lead for the Core 5 221E. Single-core R15 gives the Core 5 221E a 27.6% edge at 368 versus 288.5. R20 results show an 8.5% lead for the Core 5 221E in both single-core (1537 versus 1417) and multi-core (10891 versus 10041) tests.

PassMark integer math reveals another massive divergence. The Core 5 221E scores 117813, which is 71.9% higher than the Core Ultra 5 225H's 68520. This strongly indicates different core architectures, with the Core 5 221E's design favoring integer-heavy instruction streams. Data compression also favors the Core 5 221E by 14.4%, with scores of 324285 versus 283451.

The Core Ultra 5 225H counters in several specific workloads. Most notably, it leads in PassMark extended instructions by 16.9% (21915 versus 18216) and in find prime numbers by 21.4% (220 versus 173). It also wins data encryption by 10.4% (21428 versus 19205) and floating point math by 8.7% (86540 versus 79028). PassMark single-thread shows a modest 2.6% lead for the Core Ultra 5 225H at 4258 versus 4147.

Other PassMark tests show the Core 5 221E ahead in physics (2230 versus 1877, an 18.8% gap), multithread (30510 versus 28119, 8.5%), and random string sorting (37686 versus 33654, 12%). The overall average benchmark score places the Core 5 221E at 40144 with an 87th percentile ranking, while the Core Ultra 5 225H sits at 31508 with an 82nd percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H reaches 4.90 GHz.

Q: How do the thread counts compare?

A: The Core 5 221E has 20 threads across 14 cores, while the Core Ultra 5 225H has 14 threads across 14 cores. This means the Core 5 221E supports hyper-threading while the Core Ultra 5 225H does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225H offers 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the Core 5 221E provides 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 221E supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 225H does not include this feature.

Q: What integrated graphics do these processors use?

A: The Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 225H uses Arc Graphics 130T.

Q: How do the benchmark percentile rankings differ?

A: The Core 5 221E ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 225H ranks in the 82nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two processors is substantial. The Core 5 221E comes from the Bartlett Lake family and is built on Intel's 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 225H uses the Arrow Lake-H architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake design, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. This process difference explains some of the power and efficiency characteristics seen in the temperature and power envelope data.

Core configuration differs significantly. Both have 14 physical cores, but the Core 5 221E supports 20 threads with its multithreading capability. The Core Ultra 5 225H has only 14 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multithreading. This directly impacts multi-threaded benchmark results, particularly in Cinebench R23 where the 77.3% gap aligns with the thread count advantage.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 221E provides 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 225H offers larger per-core caches: 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, but a smaller 18 MB shared L3 cache. The larger L1 and L2 caches on the Core Ultra 5 225H may explain its wins in encryption, extended instructions, and prime number finding, which are often latency-sensitive workloads.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 5 221E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 225H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes. The Core 5 221E also has a larger die size at 257 mm²; the Core Ultra 5 225H's die size is not recorded in the database.

Memory support separates the two further. The Core 5 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 225H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. This reflects the desktop versus mobile positioning of each chip, as does the socket type: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 5 221E versus Intel BGA 2049 for the Core Ultra 5 225H.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear differences across several fields. The Core 5 221E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 225H runs at 1.70 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. Thermal design power differs substantially: 65 watts for the Core 5 221E versus 28 watts for the Core Ultra 5 225H.

The Core 5 221E has 20 threads versus 14 threads on the Core Ultra 5 225H. Market segments also differ, with the Core 5 221E classified as desktop and the Core Ultra 5 225H as mobile. The Core 5 221E carries a launch MSRP of $232, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 5 225H.

Memory bandwidth favors the Core Ultra 5 225H at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 5 221E. ECC memory support is present on the Core 5 221E but absent on the Core Ultra 5 225H. PCIe lane counts differ: 16 lanes for the Core 5 221E and 8 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 225H, both Gen 5.

The integrated graphics differ in naming and positioning: UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 5 221E and Arc Graphics 130T for the Core Ultra 5 225H. The process nodes are 10 nm for the Core 5 221E and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 5 225H, with different foundries (Intel versus TSMC). Both processors share the same release date and are marked as active in production.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 221E dominates in rendering workloads and integer-heavy computation. Cinebench R23 results show a 77.3% multi-core advantage and an 85.9% single-core advantage, making it the clear choice for CPU-bound rendering tasks. PassMark integer math shows a 71.9% lead, indicating strength in general-purpose computing and productivity applications. Data compression (14.4% ahead), physics (18.8%), multithread (8.5%), and random string sorting (12%) round out its portfolio of wins.

The Core 5 221E also benefits from its desktop positioning. Its 65 watt TDP allows for sustained high clocks, and the 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide more expansion headroom for discrete hardware. The 24 MB shared L3 cache and 20 threads make it suitable for heavily parallel workloads that can use additional thread count.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H wins specifically in cryptography and vectorized workloads. Data encryption shows a 10.4% lead, extended instructions a 16.9% lead, and find prime numbers a 21.4% lead. Floating point math also favors it by 8.7%. These wins suggest its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, combined with the 3 nm process, deliver efficiency in specialized instruction paths.

PassMark single-thread gives the Core Ultra 5 225H a narrow 2.6% lead, indicating that its single-core performance without multithreading can still be competitive in certain instruction mixes. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and support for LPDDR5X also make it more suited for bandwidth-sensitive mobile tasks.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct use cases. The Intel Core 5 221E is the stronger overall performer, with an average benchmark score of 40144 versus 31508 for the Core Ultra 5 225H. Its 87th percentile ranking versus 82nd confirms this positioning. For workloads that rely on thread count, rendering, integer math, or sustained desktop performance, the Core 5 221E is the superior choice. The 77.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 71.9% lead in integer math make this unambiguous.

The Core Ultra 5 225H suits a different profile. Its 28 watt TDP and mobile segment classification point toward battery-conscious designs. The 3 nm process from TSMC enables this efficiency, and the wins in encryption, extended instructions, and floating point math show it handles specialized workloads competently. The single-thread PassMark result, though only 2.6% ahead, suggests competitive per-thread efficiency in certain paths.

For a desktop system where performance is the priority and power draw is less constrained, the Core 5 221E delivers more in nearly every rendering and productivity metric. For a mobile platform where the 28 watt envelope and 3 nm efficiency matter, the Core Ultra 5 225H provides targeted strengths without the thread count or clock speed of the desktop part. The recorded data supports the Core 5 221E for compute-heavy desktop workloads and the Core Ultra 5 225H for efficient mobile deployment with specific vectorized or cryptographic tasks.