Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison
Intel Core 5 221E
Core Ultra 7 265F
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F
FAQ
Q: Which processor delivers the higher overall benchmark average?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F records an average benchmark score of 64438, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 221E averages 40144, which sits in the 87th percentile.
Q: How does the Core Ultra 7 265F compare to the Core 5 221E in single-threaded performance?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265F wins every single-core test recorded. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 5926 against 3661 for the Core 5 221E, a 38.2% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 4750 versus 4147, a 12.7% lead.
Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the Core 5 221E takes the lead?
A: No. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Core Ultra 7 265F wins every test. The Core 5 221E records zero wins in the comparison data.
Q: What are the core and thread counts for these two desktop processors?
A: The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. Both processors are locked, with multiplier unlock set to false.
Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?
A: No. The Core 5 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only. The Core Ultra 7 265F has higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s.
Q: What is the launch MSRP for each processor?
A: The Intel Core 5 221E has a launch MSRP of $232. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has a launch MSRP of $379.
Architecture Differences
The two processors represent distinct Intel design generations. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 7 265F belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 7 265F lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 5 221E lists a 257 mm² die without a transistor count.
Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 5 221E provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265F increases each level: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. The larger per-core cache allocation on the Core Ultra 7 265F aligns with its Arrow Lake architecture.
Socket compatibility separates the two. The Core 5 221E fits Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265F requires Intel Socket 1851. This means platform choice dictates which processor can be installed. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Core 5 221E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes.
Integrated graphics present another divergence. The Core 5 221E includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 7 265F lists integrated graphics as N/A, meaning it has no integrated GPU. Systems using the Core Ultra 7 265F must rely on a discrete graphics card. ECC memory support also differs: the Core 5 221E supports ECC memory, the Core Ultra 7 265F does not.
Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The Core 5 221E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 265F has a lower base clock of 2.40 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Both processors carry a 65 W TDP. The Core 5 221E was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core Ultra 7 265F was released on 2025-01-06.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The recorded benchmark data shows a comprehensive victory for the Core Ultra 7 265F. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 4231 versus 2613, a 38.2% gap. The R15 single-core test shows 597 against 368, also a 38.4% difference. These margins persist across the Cinebench suite. R20 multicore delivers 17631 versus 10891, and R20 single-core delivers 2488 versus 1537, both at 38.2% deltas. R23 multicore reaches 41980 against 25933, while R23 single-core reaches 5926 against 3661, maintaining the 38.2% separation.
PassMark results reveal where the architectural advantages concentrate. The largest delta appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 416 against 173, a 58.4% lead. Extended instructions show a 53.6% advantage, with scores of 39235 versus 18216. Floating point math demonstrates a 54.5% gap, 173855 versus 79028. Data encryption posts a 51.3% lead, 39468 versus 19205.
The smallest margins appear in integer-heavy workloads. PassMark integer math shows the Core Ultra 7 265F at 138078 versus 117813, a 14.7% lead. Single-thread performance in PassMark records 4750 versus 4147, a 12.7% difference. Random string sorting shows a 39.6% gap, 62439 versus 37686. Multithread performance in PassMark delivers 49410 versus 30510, a 38.3% lead. Physics scores 3172 against 2230, a 29.7% advantage. Data compression posts 507018 versus 324285, a 36% lead.
The pattern indicates that the Core Ultra 7 265F gains its largest advantages in workloads that benefit from the newer process node, larger caches, and higher boost clock. The Core 5 221E stays closest in integer math and single-thread PassMark, where the core count difference matters less.
The Verdict
The data supports a clear performance hierarchy. The Core Ultra 7 265F outperforms the Core 5 221E in every recorded benchmark category, with an average benchmark score of 64438 versus 40144. The percentile ranking places the Core Ultra 7 265F at 93 against 87 for the Core 5 221E. The Core Ultra 7 265F also matches its nearest rivals closely, sitting within 0.6% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the Intel Core i9-13900KS.
The Core 5 221E, however, occupies a different position in the market. It carries a launch MSRP of $232 versus $379 for the Core Ultra 7 265F. It supports DDR4 memory, which can reduce platform costs, and it includes integrated graphics, making it viable for systems without a discrete GPU. It also supports ECC memory, which suits certain workstation or server-adjacent use cases.
For buyers who prioritize raw compute, the Core Ultra 7 265F is the choice. The benchmark data shows no category where the Core 5 221E wins. For buyers who need integrated graphics, DDR4 compatibility, or ECC support, the Core 5 221E offers those features, though with substantially lower performance. The nearest rival data for the Core 5 221E shows it trading almost evenly with the AMD Ryzen 7 7700, at a 0.2% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 9 270, at a -0.3% delta. The Core Ultra 7 265F similarly trades closely with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD EPYC 7343, at -0.3% and 0.4% deltas respectively.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across multiple specification fields. Core count: 14 for the Core 5 221E, 20 for the Core Ultra 7 265F. Thread count is identical at 20. Base clock: 2.70 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clock: 5.20 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Die size: 257 mm² versus 243 mm². Transistor count: not listed versus 17,800 million.
Cache: L1 per core 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 per core 2 MB versus 3 MB. L3 shared 24 MB versus 30 MB. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory: true versus false. PCIe lanes: Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus N/A. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851. Release date: 2025-01-12 versus 2025-01-06. Launch MSRP: $232 versus $379. Part number: SRQDVQ659 versus SRQCV.
Where Each One Wins
The Core Ultra 7 265F wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split comes from platform features rather than performance. The Core Ultra 7 265F suits workloads that demand maximum throughput: Cinebench rendering, data compression, encryption, floating-point math, and prime number calculation all show at least a 36% advantage. The 20-core configuration with 30 MB of L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth supports heavy parallel processing. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the Intel Core i9-13900KS, indicating it competes at the top of the desktop range.
The Core 5 221E suits systems where the platform features matter more than peak compute. It includes UHD Graphics 730, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. DDR4 support allows for lower-cost memory configurations. ECC memory support provides data integrity for specific professional workloads. The Intel Socket 1700 platform may also be more widely available or compatible with existing motherboards. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, showing it competes in the mid-range desktop segment.
The benchmark deltas also guide workload selection. For integer math, the Core Ultra 7 265F leads by only 14.7%, the smallest margin in the dataset. For single-thread PassMark, the lead narrows to 12.7%. Workloads that rely heavily on integer operations or lighter single-threaded tasks will still favor the Core Ultra 7 265F, but the gap is less pronounced. For extended instructions and floating-point math, the Core Ultra 7 265F leads by over 53%, making it the clear choice for scientific or simulation workloads.
For buyers constrained to the Intel Socket 1700 platform, the Core 5 221E provides a capable 14-core, 20-thread processor with a 5.20 GHz boost clock and 24 MB of L3 cache. For buyers building on Intel Socket 1851, the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers substantially higher performance across all 17 recorded tests, with an average benchmark score 60.5% higher than the Core 5 221E.