Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the Intel Core 5 221E has a full suite of benchmark results, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence shapes the entire analysis. The direct head-to-head table is empty, so the comparison relies on the Core 5 221E's standalone performance profile and the architectural specifications of both processors.

The Core 5 221E delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25,933 and a single-core score of 3,661. In Cinebench R20, it records 10,891 multi-core and 1,537 single-core. The R15 results show 2,613 multi-core and 368 single-core. These scores position the processor at the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 40,144 places it in close competition with several AMD parts. The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 averages 40,081, a delta of 0.2%. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 also averages 40,048, again a 0.2% delta. The AMD Ryzen 9 270 scores 40,246, which is 0.3% higher than the Core 5 221E. The Intel Core i9-13905H averages 40,313, 0.4% higher. These margins are remarkably thin, indicating the Core 5 221E sits in a dense performance cluster.

PassMark results for the Core 5 221E show integer math at 117,813, floating point math at 79,028, and extended instructions at 18,216. Data compression reaches 324,285, while data encryption hits 19,205. Prime number finding scores 173, random string sorting 37,686, physics 2,230, and multi-thread 30,510. Single-thread PassMark scores are 4,147. The multi-thread score of 30,510 versus the single-thread score of 4,147 indicates strong scaling across the 14 cores and 20 threads.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL, by contrast, has no benchmark entries. Its percentile rank is 50, and its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. This does not mean the processor is incapable; it means the database lacks measurements for it. The analysis must therefore treat the Core Ultra 7 155HL as an unmeasured entity, with its potential inferred from specifications rather than demonstrated results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better recorded benchmark performance?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 221E has benchmark scores in the database. It achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25,933 and a PassMark multi-thread score of 30,510. The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded benchmark results, so no direct performance comparison is possible from the data.

Q: How does the Core 5 221E compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core 5 221E's average benchmark score is 40,144. The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 averages 40,081 (0.2% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 averages 40,048 (0.2% lower), the AMD Ryzen 9 270 averages 40,246 (0.3% higher), and the Intel Core i9-13905H averages 40,313 (0.4% higher). All four rivals fall within a 0.4% band around the Core 5 221E.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has 16 cores and 22 threads. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has two additional cores and two additional threads.

Q: Do these processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses Intel Socket 1851. They are not socket-compatible.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Core 5 221E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core 5 221E has a higher base clock by 1.30 GHz and a higher boost clock by 0.40 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core 5 221E supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 155HL does not support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Core Ultra 7 155HL uses the Meteor Lake architecture, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS codename, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 1 generation.

The manufacturing process differs. The Core 5 221E is built on a 10 nm node, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses a 7 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the smaller node on the Core Ultra 7 155HL suggests a denser transistor layout, although the database does not list transistor counts for either part. The Core 5 221E has a die size of 257 mm²; the Core Ultra 7 155HL has no die size recorded.

Cache hierarchies show both similarities and differences. Both processors share 24 MB of L3 cache. The L2 cache is 2 MB per core for both. The L1 cache differs: the Core 5 221E has 80 KB per core, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL has 112 KB per core. This gives the Core Ultra 7 155HL a larger L1 allocation per core, which can benefit certain workloads that rely on fast access to frequently used data.

The integrated graphics differ substantially. The Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses Arc Xe-LPG 128EU. The Arc branding indicates a more advanced graphics architecture, though the database does not provide graphics benchmark scores for either part.

PCIe support also differs. The Core 5 221E supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 155HL supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 221E offers a newer PCIe generation and double the lane count, which matters for bandwidth-hungry devices like discrete GPUs or NVMe storage.

Release dates place these parts in different timeframes. The Core Ultra 7 155HL was released on 2024-04-07, while the Core 5 221E followed on 2025-01-12. The Core Ultra 7 155HL predates the Core 5 221E by roughly nine months.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ: 14 cores for the Core 5 221E versus 16 cores for the Core Ultra 7 155HL. Thread counts follow: 20 threads versus 22 threads. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has more parallelism available.

Clock speeds diverge clearly. The Core 5 221E runs at 2.70 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost. The Core Ultra 7 155HL runs at 1.40 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The Core 5 221E holds the advantage in both metrics.

Thermal design power differs. The Core 5 221E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core Ultra 7 155HL is rated for lower power consumption, which may influence cooling requirements and system integration.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 5 221E, Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 7 155HL. Memory support shows a distinction: the Core 5 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL supports DDR5 with the caveat that it depends on the motherboard. Both use dual-channel memory buses, and both have identical memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Core 5 221E. The Core Ultra 7 155HL lacks ECC capability. PCIe specifications favor the Core 5 221E with Gen 5 and 16 lanes versus Gen 4 and 8 lanes for the Core Ultra 7 155HL.

The launch MSRP for the Core 5 221E is $232. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 7 155HL is $438. Both processors are locked, with multiplier unlock set to false. Both have active production status and target the desktop market segment. The part numbers differ: SRQDVQ659 for the Core 5 221E, SRN2Z for the Core Ultra 7 155HL.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for measured performance: the Core 5 221E is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark scores. Its 87th percentile ranking and average score of 40,144 place it among competitive desktop processors. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded benchmarks, so its performance cannot be verified from the database.

The Core 5 221E also leads in several specification categories. It has a higher base clock by 1.30 GHz, a higher boost clock by 0.40 GHz, a newer PCIe generation, double the PCIe lanes, ECC memory support, and a lower launch MSRP of $232 versus $438. The Core Ultra 7 155HL counters with more cores (16 versus 14), more threads (22 versus 20), a smaller process node (7 nm versus 10 nm), a larger L1 cache per core (112 KB versus 80 KB), and a lower TDP (45 watts versus 65 watts).

The Core Ultra 7 155HL may offer advantages in power-constrained scenarios and in workloads that scale with additional cores, but those advantages are speculative without benchmark data. The Core 5 221E has demonstrated results across Cinebench and PassMark suites, giving it a verified performance baseline. For any user relying on documented performance, the Core 5 221E is the defensible choice from the available data.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 221E wins in every measured benchmark category, simply because it has measurements. Its Cinebench R23 scores of 25,933 multi-core and 3,661 single-core establish a baseline for both threaded and lightly threaded workloads. PassMark results show particular strength in data compression at 324,285 and integer math at 117,813, suggesting solid throughput for computational tasks.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL wins in specification-level comparisons that do not require benchmark scores. Its 16 cores and 22 threads exceed the Core 5 221E's 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating potential superiority in heavily parallel workloads if the architecture scales efficiently. The 7 nm process node suggests better transistor density than the 10 nm node of the Core 5 221E. The 45 watt TDP versus 65 watts indicates the Core Ultra 7 155HL is designed for lower power envelopes.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL also wins on integrated graphics architecture, using Arc Xe-LPG 128EU versus UHD Graphics 730. The Arc branding implies a more capable integrated GPU, though no graphics benchmarks exist in the database to quantify the difference.

The Core 5 221E wins on platform connectivity with PCIe Gen 5 and 16 lanes. The Core Ultra 7 155HL uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes, which could bottleneck high-throughput add-in cards. The Core 5 221E additionally supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL supports DDR5 only, with motherboard dependency noted.

For workloads where verified performance matters, such as rendering, compilation, or data processing, the Core 5 221E has the evidence. For workloads where core count and power efficiency take priority, the Core Ultra 7 155HL presents a plausible alternative, but the lack of benchmark data leaves its real-world behavior unconfirmed. The database records one part with proven results and one part with only theoretical specifications.