Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, which takes 15 of 17 recorded tests. The Intel Core 5 221E manages only 2 wins, both in the Cinebench R20 suite. However, those two wins are striking because they reverse the trend seen across all other workloads.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core 5 221E scores 10891 against the Core Ultra 7 265's 6268, a 73.8% advantage. The single-core R20 result repeats the pattern: 1537 for the Core 5 versus 884 for the Core Ultra 7, again a 73.9% gap. These are the largest deltas in either direction across the entire comparison. The R20 results appear anomalous when set against the other Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 4255 versus 2613 for the Core 5 221E, a 38.6% lead. In R15 single-core, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 600 versus 368, a 38.7% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 42216 versus 25933, a 38.6% lead. In R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 5960 versus 3661, also a 38.6% lead. The consistency of the 38.6% margin in three of the four non-R20 Cinebench tests suggests the R20 results may reflect a specific workload characteristic rather than general performance.

PassMark results consistently favor the Core Ultra 7 265. The smallest margin is in single-thread performance: 4689 versus 4147, an 11.6% lead. Integer math shows a modest 12.6% advantage (134773 versus 117813). The largest PassMark gap is in find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 418 versus 173, a 58.6% lead. Extended instructions show a 56.1% gap (41478 versus 18216). Floating point math delivers a 54.3% lead (172776 versus 79028). Data encryption shows a 52.5% gap (40456 versus 19205). Data compression shows a 38% lead (522983 versus 324285). Random string sorting shows a 41% gap (63833 versus 37686). Multi-thread performance shows a 38.6% lead (49682 versus 30510). Physics tests show a 23.7% advantage (2923 versus 2230).

The average benchmark score confirms the overall picture: the Core Ultra 7 265 averages 64640, while the Core 5 221E averages 40144. The Core Ultra 7 265 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 221E sits in the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 221E include the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 at 40081 (0.2% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 9 270 at 40246 (0.3% ahead). The Core Ultra 7 265's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P at 64823 (0.3% ahead) and the AMD EPYC 9124 at 65104 (0.7% ahead).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The transistor count differs substantially: the Core Ultra 7 265 packs 17,800 million transistors versus no recorded transistor count for the Core 5 221E. Die sizes are close, with the Core 5 221E at 257 mm² and the Core Ultra 7 265 at 243 mm².

Core and thread counts differ. The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and also 20 threads, indicating a different core topology where not all cores add threads. The Core Ultra 7 265 runs a lower base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 221E, but boosts higher to 5.30 GHz versus 5.20 GHz.

Cache hierarchies show meaningful differences. The Core 5 221E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. The larger per-core caches in the Core Ultra 7 265 align with its higher single-thread scores in most tests.

Memory support diverges. The Core 5 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory support. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, with higher bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s and no ECC support. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Core 5 221E provides 16 Gen 5 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 265 provides 20 Gen 5 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU. Both are desktop market segments with active production status. The Core 5 221E released on January 12, 2025, while the Core Ultra 7 265 released on January 6, 2025. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Sockets are incompatible. The Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses Intel Socket 1851. This means platform selection forces a choice between the two architectures.

The Verdict

The data indicates two different performance profiles with a clear overall leader. The Core Ultra 7 265 wins 15 of 17 benchmark comparisons and holds a 61% higher average benchmark score (64640 versus 40144). Its percentile ranking of 93 versus 87 places it in a higher performance tier. For workloads that match the PassMark suite or most Cinebench versions, the Core Ultra 7 265 delivers consistently higher throughput, from 11.6% in single-thread tests to 58.6% in prime number finding.

The Core 5 221E's two wins in Cinebench R20, with margins of 73.8% and 73.9%, present a puzzle. These results contradict every other multi-core and single-core test in the dataset. If the R20 results reflect a real workload characteristic, then the Core 5 221E could excel in applications that stress similar computational patterns. But the weight of evidence across 15 other tests points to the Core Ultra 7 265 as the stronger processor for general and parallel workloads.

The architecture differences support the benchmark outcomes. The Core Ultra 7 265 uses a more advanced 3 nm process from TSMC, has more cores, larger caches, higher memory bandwidth, and more PCIe lanes. The Core 5 221E compensates with higher base clock and ECC support, plus compatibility with older DDR4 memory. The socket difference means these are not drop-in alternatives; they belong to different platform generations.

For users prioritizing raw performance across most measured workloads, the Core Ultra 7 265 is the data-backed choice. For users who specifically value ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, or the particular computational pattern that produces the R20 advantage, the Core 5 221E offers a distinct alternative. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 221E is $232. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 7 265 is $394.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640, while the Intel Core 5 221E averages 40144.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 221E wins 2 tests, both in the Cinebench R20 suite.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gaps are in the Cinebench R20 tests, where the Core 5 221E leads by 73.8% in multi-core and 73.9% in single-core. The largest Core Ultra 7 265 lead is 58.6% in the PassMark find prime numbers test.

Q: Do the two processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core 5 221E supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 265 does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265 wins in every PassMark category. This includes data compression (522983 versus 324285), data encryption (40456 versus 19205), extended instructions (41478 versus 18216), find prime numbers (418 versus 173), floating point math (172776 versus 79028), integer math (134773 versus 117813), multi-thread (49682 versus 30510), physics (2923 versus 2230), random string sorting (63833 versus 37686), and single-thread (4689 versus 4147). These wins span both parallel and scalar workloads, indicating broad applicability.

The Core Ultra 7 265 also wins three of four Cinebench versions. In R15 multi-core, it scores 4255 versus 2613. In R15 single-core, it scores 600 versus 368. In R23 multi-core, it scores 42216 versus 25933. In R23 single-core, it scores 5960 versus 3661. Only the R20 versions go to the Core 5 221E.

The Core 5 221E's wins are isolated to Cinebench R20. It scores 10891 in multi-core versus 6268, and 1537 in single-core versus 884. The consistent 73.8% and 73.9% margins in these two tests contrast sharply with the 38.6% deficits in R15 and R23, suggesting a workload-specific advantage rather than general superiority.

For memory bandwidth, the Core Ultra 7 265 has the higher recorded bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. For PCIe expansion, the Core Ultra 7 265 provides 20 Gen 5 lanes versus 16 Gen 5 lanes. For ECC and memory flexibility, the Core 5 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with ECC, while the Core Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5 without ECC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 221E | Intel Core Ultra 7 265 |

|----------------|-------------------|------------------------|

| Cores | 14 | 20 |

| Threads | 20 | 20 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 257 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Generation | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $232 | $394 |