Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E records an average benchmark score of 40144, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H records 33537, placing it in the 83rd percentile.

Q: How does the Intel Core 5 221E compare to its nearest rival in the database?

A: The Core 5 221E sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 9 270 (40246) and within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 (40081), showing near-identical aggregate performance to those parts.

Q: What is the most significant multi-core performance gap between the two processors?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 221E scores 25933 versus 9240 for the Core Ultra 7 255H, a delta of 180.7% in favor of the Core 5 221E.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 255H win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, it wins 8 of the 17 head-to-head tests, including passmark data encryption (23395 vs 19205), passmark extended instructions (23755 vs 18216), passmark find prime numbers (303 vs 173), and passmark floating point math (98796 vs 79028).

Q: What are the core and thread configurations?

A: The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Both processors support ECC memory, according to the database records.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 221E is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 257 mm². It uses a desktop-oriented Intel Socket 1700 and carries a 65 W TDP. Its cache hierarchy consists of 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. Memory support covers DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730, and the PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-H. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process, and the database does not list a die size. The package is Intel BGA 2049, indicating a mobile design with a 28 W TDP. Cache amounts are larger per core: 192 KB L1, 3 MB L2, and the same 24 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 and LPDDR5X over dual-channel, with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Integrated graphics are Arc Graphics 140T, and PCIe is Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The architectural split is clear. The Core 5 221E uses a desktop socket, a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz, and a 5.20 GHz boost clock. The Core Ultra 7 255H uses a mobile package, a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz, and a 5.10 GHz boost clock. The Core Ultra 7 255H has more cores (16 vs 14) but fewer threads (16 vs 20), indicating a different execution topology. The Core 5 221E relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 255H does not.

Both parts share 24 MB of L3 cache, which is a notable point of parity. The Core Ultra 7 255H counters with larger per-core L1 and L2 caches and a more advanced 3 nm process from TSMC. The Core 5 221E uses Intel's 10 nm process and a larger die area. The Core Ultra 7 255H also delivers higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s) and more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits the two processors into distinct performance domains. The Core 5 221E dominates Cinebench workloads, while the Core Ultra 7 255H takes several PassMark subtest wins.

Starting with Cinebench, the Core 5 221E wins all six recorded tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2613 against 1515, a 72.5% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 368 vs 251, a 46.6% edge. R20 multi-core results are 10891 vs 6381, a 70.7% lead, and R20 single-core is 1537 vs 900, a 70.8% lead. The largest gap appears in R23 multi-core: 25933 vs 9240, a 180.7% margin. R23 single-core follows with 3661 vs 1843, a 98.6% advantage.

The PassMark suite presents a mixed picture. The Core 5 221E wins data compression (324285 vs 298850, 8.5% higher), integer math (117813 vs 77975, 51.1% higher), and random string sorting (37686 vs 36058, 4.5% higher). The Core Ultra 7 255H wins data encryption (23395 vs 19205, 17.9% higher), extended instructions (23755 vs 18216, 23.3% higher), find prime numbers (303 vs 173, 42.9% higher), floating point math (98796 vs 79028, 20% higher), multithread (30703 vs 30510, 0.6% higher), physics (2254 vs 2230, 1.1% higher), and single-thread (4317 vs 4147, 3.9% higher).

The aggregate win count favors the Core 5 221E, with 9 wins against 8 for the Core Ultra 7 255H. However, the magnitudes differ sharply. The Core 5 221E's Cinebench wins are often massive, especially the 180.7% R23 multi-core result. The Core Ultra 7 255H's PassMark wins are mostly moderate, with the largest being 42.9% in find prime numbers.

The average benchmark score reflects the Core 5 221E's overall lead: 40144 vs 33537. That is a gap of roughly 19.7%. The Core 5 221E also ranks higher in percentile, 87th versus 83rd.

The Verdict

The data points to two different design goals. The Intel Core 5 221E is the stronger desktop computing part. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25933 is more than double the Core Ultra 7 255H's 9240. In integer math, it leads by 51.1%. In data compression, it leads by 8.5%. For workloads that stress sustained multi-core rendering or CPU integer throughput, the Core 5 221E is clearly ahead.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the better mobile processing part for specific instruction-level tasks. It wins floating point math by 20%, extended instructions by 23.3%, and encryption by 17.9%. Its single-thread PassMark score of 4317 edges the Core 5 221E's 4147 by 3.9%. Its 28 W TDP against 65 W suggests a power-conscious design, though the database does not record power draw measurements.

The Core 5 221E also carries a launch MSRP of $232, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has no recorded launch MSRP. The production status for both is Active, and both were released on the same date.

For a system where rendering, compression, and integer workloads dominate, the Core 5 221E is the choice. For a system where encryption, floating point, and extended instruction workloads matter, and where a mobile form factor with 16 cores is required, the Core Ultra 7 255H is the choice.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded fields:

• Cores: 14 (Core 5 221E) vs 16 (Core Ultra 7 255H)
• Threads: 20 vs 16
• Base clock: 2.70 GHz vs 2.00 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.20 GHz vs 5.10 GHz
• TDP: 65 W vs 28 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 vs Intel BGA 2049
• Codename: Bartlett Lake vs Arrow Lake-H
• Process node: 10 nm (Intel) vs 3 nm (TSMC)
• Die size: 257 mm² vs not listed
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core vs 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core vs 3 MB per core
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 vs DDR5, LPDDR5X
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s
• PCIe lanes: 16 vs 20
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 vs Arc Graphics 140T
• Market segment: Desktop vs Mobile
• Launch MSRP: $232 vs not listed

Shared specifications include 24 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory bus, ECC support, Gen 5 PCIe, locked multiplier, and the same release date.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 221E wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core (72.5% higher), Cinebench R15 single-core (46.6% higher), Cinebench R20 multi-core (70.7% higher), Cinebench R20 single-core (70.8% higher), Cinebench R23 multi-core (180.7% higher), Cinebench R23 single-core (98.6% higher), PassMark data compression (8.5% higher), PassMark integer math (51.1% higher), and PassMark random string sorting (4.5% higher).

The Core Ultra 7 255H wins in PassMark data encryption (17.9% higher), PassMark extended instructions (23.3% higher), PassMark find prime numbers (42.9% higher), PassMark floating point math (20% higher), PassMark multithread (0.6% higher), PassMark physics (1.1% higher), and PassMark single-thread (3.9% higher).

The Core 5 221E is suited to Cinebench-style rendering work, integer math, data compression, and sorting tasks. Its wins are high-margin, particularly in multi-core rendering where the R23 delta reaches 180.7%. The Core Ultra 7 255H is suited to encryption, floating point math, prime number computation, and extended instruction workloads. Its wins are more numerous in the PassMark subtests but mostly lower in margin. The multithread PassMark result is nearly even, 30703 vs 30510, a 0.6% edge for the Core Ultra 7 255H, suggesting that in mixed parallel workloads the two parts are close. Physics is similarly close at 2254 vs 2230, a 1.1% margin. Single-thread PassMark is also tight, 4317 vs 4147, a 3.9% edge for the Core Ultra 7 255H.

Overall, the Core 5 221E uses its extra threads and higher clocks to win the heavy multi-core tests, while the Core Ultra 7 255H leverages its newer process and larger per-core caches to win several math and encryption tests. The recorded data shows a desktop part with a decisive edge in rendering and integer work, and a mobile part with a modest edge in specific instruction-level and floating point operations.