Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts for the Intel Core 5 221E and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA?

A: Both processors feature 14 cores. The Intel Core 5 221E supports 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA supports 14 threads.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA's boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The base clocks are 2.70 GHz for the 221E and 2.20 GHz for the 235TA.

Q: What is the difference in process node technology?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA uses a 3 nm process manufactured by TSMC.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Intel Core 5 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA offers a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which integrated graphics are included in each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E includes UHD Graphics 730. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear separation between these two desktop processors. The Intel Core 5 221E is the only one of the pair with benchmark results in the database, and its performance percentile of 87 versus 50 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA indicates a substantial gap in measured capability.

The Intel Core 5 221E should be selected by users who need established, documented multi-threaded performance. Its 20 threads, higher base and boost clocks, and available benchmark data confirm its readiness for workloads that scale across cores. The processor sits at the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 40144. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 with an average score of 40081 and a delta of 0.2%, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 at 40048 with a delta of 0.2%, the AMD Ryzen 9 270 at 40246 with a delta of -0.3%, and the Intel Core i9-13905H at 40313 with a delta of -0.4%. These margins, all within 0.4%, place the 221E in a tightly contested performance tier.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA has no benchmark scores recorded in the database, which makes direct quantitative comparison impossible. Its architectural specifications, including a 3 nm process node, 17,800 million transistors, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, indicate a newer design. However, the absence of measured results means the database cannot confirm its real-world standing. The 235TA targets users who prioritize the newer platform features, such as the Intel Socket 1851, Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, and DDR5-only support, but those choosing it must accept that its performance profile is unverified in the database.

For any workload where known performance matters, the data favors the Intel Core 5 221E.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors. However, the Intel Core 5 221E has a full set of recorded scores that illustrate its capability profile, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA has none.

In Cinebench testing, the 221E delivers a multi-core score of 25933 in Cinebench R23 and a single-core score of 3661. The Cinebench R20 results show 10891 multi-core and 1537 single-core. The Cinebench R15 results show 2613 multi-core and 368 single-core. These scores represent the processor's rendering and compute throughput across successive benchmark versions.

PassMark results for the 221E show 30510 in multithreaded testing and 4147 in single-thread testing. The integer math score reaches 117813, while floating point math reaches 79028. Data compression scores 324285, data encryption scores 19205, and extended instructions score 18216. Random string sorting achieves 37686, and physics testing scores 2230. Prime number finding scores 173.

Because the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA has no recorded benchmark scores, the database cannot show where it wins or loses on any specific test. The only quantitative comparison available is the percentile ranking, which places the 221E at 87 and the 235TA at 50. That difference of 37 percentile points is the single strongest indicator in the recorded data, though it must be interpreted carefully given the missing benchmark set for the 235TA.

The nearest rival data for the 221E provides additional context. The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 trails by 0.2% with a score of 40081, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 trails by 0.2% with 40048, the AMD Ryzen 9 270 leads by 0.3% with 40246, and the Intel Core i9-13905H leads by 0.4% with 40313. This places the 221E in a competitive band where small score differences separate the top performers.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The Intel Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA uses Intel Socket 1851. This socket difference means the two are not interchangeable in a motherboard.

Clock speeds differ noticeably. The 221E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 235TA has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The 221E holds the advantage in both metrics.

Memory support diverges as well. The 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the 235TA supports DDR5 exclusively. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the memory bandwidth differs: 89.6 GB/s for the 221E versus 102.4 GB/s for the 235TA.

ECC memory support is present on the 221E but absent on the 235TA. PCIe lane counts differ, with the 221E providing Gen 5 with 16 lanes and the 235TA providing Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ: the 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the 235TA uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU.

The process node and foundry differ substantially. The 221E uses a 10 nm process at Intel, while the 235TA uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. The 235TA has 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm², while the 221E has a die size of 257 mm² with no transistor count recorded in the database.

Cache configurations differ. The 221E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The 235TA has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. Both share 24 MB of L3 cache.

Thread counts differ: 20 threads for the 221E versus 14 threads for the 235TA, despite both having 14 cores. The release dates differ as well, with the 221E released on 2025-01-12 and the 235TA released on 2025-07-28. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architecture split between these processors is significant. The Intel Core 5 221E is based on the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA uses the Arrow Lake architecture and the Arrow Lake-S codename, belonging to the Ultra 5 series within Core Ultra Series 2.

The manufacturing approach differs at the foundry level. The 221E is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The 235TA is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. This represents a generational shift in both process node and manufacturing partner.

Transistor counts show the 235TA's density advantage, with 17,800 million transistors recorded. The die sizes are similar, with the 221E at 257 mm² and the 235TA at 243 mm².

Cache architecture shows a notable difference in per-core allocations. The 235TA provides 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, while the 221E provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is identical at 24 MB shared.

The thread architecture differs despite matching core counts. The 221E delivers 20 threads from 14 cores, indicating Hyper-Threading support. The 235TA delivers 14 threads from 14 cores, indicating no additional threading per core.

Memory controller features differ, with the 221E supporting both DDR4 and DDR5 and offering ECC memory, while the 235TA is DDR5-only without ECC support. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the 235TA offering 20 Gen 5 lanes versus 16 Gen 5 lanes for the 221E.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 221E wins in every measured performance category in the database. Its 20 threads versus 14 threads for the 235TA gives it an advantage in multi-threaded workloads that can utilize additional logical processors. The higher base clock of 2.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 2.20 GHz and 5.00 GHz respectively support both single-thread and multi-thread tasks.

The 221E's benchmark scores establish its capability in rendering workloads, as shown by Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25933 and single-core score of 3661. PassMark results further confirm its strength in integer math at 117813 and floating point math at 79028. The 87th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database reinforces its position as a high-performing desktop processor.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA wins in architectural currency. Its 3 nm process node, manufactured by TSMC, represents a newer fabrication technology than the 221E's 10 nm process at Intel. The 17,800 million transistors indicate a more complex design. The 235TA offers a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s, a larger L1 cache of 192 KB per core versus 80 KB, and a larger L2 cache of 3 MB per core versus 2 MB.

The 235TA also provides more PCIe lanes at 20 Gen 5 lanes versus 16 Gen 5 lanes, which supports additional expansion options. Its Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU integrated graphics may offer different display capabilities than the UHD Graphics 730 in the 221E, though no benchmark data confirms either GPU's performance.

The 235TA's socket, Intel Socket 1851, and its DDR5-only memory support define a newer platform. The 221E's dual memory support and ECC capability make it suitable for configurations requiring DDR4 compatibility or error-correcting memory.

For users prioritizing verified performance, the 221E is the choice based on the recorded data. For users prioritizing the newer architecture, the 235TA is the choice based on its specifications, with the caveat that its actual performance has not been measured in the database.