Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database presents a clear overall winner between the Intel Core 5 221E and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, with the latter securing 14 wins against 3 for the former across 17 recorded tests. The margin of victory, however, varies dramatically depending on the workload, and one particular test flips the script entirely.

In the Cinebench suite, the Core Ultra 7 366H consistently outperforms the Core 5 221E by nearly identical margins. The R15 multi-core test shows a 9% advantage (2870 vs 2613), while single-core trails at 9.1% (405 vs 368). This pattern holds steady through R20 and R23, where the multi-core deltas sit at 8.9% in both cases (11960 vs 10891 and 28477 vs 25933 respectively). The single-core results mirror this exactly, with 8.9% gaps in favor of the Ultra 7 across R20 (1688 vs 1537) and R23 (4020 vs 3661). The consistency of that 8.9% figure across three different Cinebench versions suggests a fixed architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

The Passmark suite tells a more nuanced story. The Ultra 7 dominates in several specialized tests. The data encryption test shows a 25.7% lead (25845 vs 19205), and extended instructions reveal a massive 32.3% gap (26901 vs 18216). The find prime numbers test is the most lopsided of all, with the Ultra 7 scoring 326 against the Core 5's 173, a 46.9% difference. Floating point math also favors the Ultra 7 by 23.7% (103615 vs 79028), and physics testing shows a 22.6% edge (2880 vs 2230).

Yet the Core 5 221E delivers one emphatic counterpunch. In integer math, it scores 117813 against 83695 for the Ultra 7, a 40.8% advantage. This is the largest delta in either direction across the entire comparison. The single-thread Passmark result also goes to the Core 5, albeit narrowly, with 4147 vs 4043, a 2.6% margin that appears twice in the recorded data (both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread).

The remaining tests are closer. Data compression shows a mere 1% gap (327455 vs 324285), and random string sorting lands at 5.3% (39814 vs 37686), both favoring the Ultra 7. The multithread Passmark score gives the Ultra 7 an 8.7% edge (33429 vs 30510), consistent with the Cinebench multi-core pattern.

Where Each One Wins

The data suggests distinct use-case profiles. The Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice for encryption, compression, and extended instruction workloads. Its 25.7% lead in data encryption and 32.3% advantage in extended instructions point to strong cryptographic and SIMD processing capabilities. The 46.9% margin in prime number finding indicates exceptional integer-heavy algorithmic performance, while the 23.7% floating point advantage covers scientific and 3D rendering tasks. The physics test, with a 22.6% lead, reinforces the Ultra 7's suitability for simulation workloads.

The Core 5 221E wins in integer math by a massive 40.8%, which could translate to advantages in database operations, financial modeling, or any workload that relies heavily on general-purpose integer calculations. Its 2.6% single-thread Passmark win, while modest, suggests slightly better raw single-core responsiveness in certain legacy or lightly threaded scenarios.

For users running mixed workloads, the Ultra 7's broader win distribution makes it the more versatile option. The Core 5's single decisive victory, combined with its narrow single-thread edge, paints a picture of a specialist rather than a generalist.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design approaches. The Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, belongs to the Bartlett Lake codename family, and is built on a 10 nm process node with a die size of 257 mm². It targets the desktop market segment. The Core Ultra 7 366H, meanwhile, uses Intel BGA 2540, is based on Panther Lake architecture, and employs a 3 nm process node. It is designed for mobile platforms.

Core counts differ notably: the Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores but only 16 threads. This means the Ultra 7 lacks hyperthreading, which explains some of the performance dynamics. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 has significantly larger per-core caches at 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2, but a smaller shared L3 pool at 18 MB.

Memory support separates them further. The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s and includes ECC memory support. The Ultra 7 works with DDR5 and LPDDR5X, achieving 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, but lacks ECC. PCIe lanes also differ: 16 lanes for the Core 5 versus 12 for the Ultra 7, both at Gen 5 speeds.

The integrated graphics solutions are entirely different generations. The Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 features Intel Xe3 Graphics. Clock speeds show the Core 5 with a higher base (2.70 GHz) and boost (5.20 GHz) compared to the Ultra 7's 2.00 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. Thermal design power reflects their market positioning: 65 W for the desktop Core 5 versus 25 W for the mobile Ultra 7.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has a higher average benchmark score of 41263, compared to 40144 for the Intel Core 5 221E. Both sit at the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Ultra 7 leads in all Cinebench multi-core tests. In R23, it scores 28477 versus 25933 for the Core 5, an 8.9% advantage. The gap is consistent across R20 (11960 vs 10891) and R15 (2870 vs 2613), with deltas of 8.9% and 9% respectively.

Q: Does the Core 5 221E win any benchmark by a significant margin?

A: Yes, in Passmark integer math the Core 5 scores 117813 against 83695 for the Ultra 7, a commanding 40.8% lead. It also edges out the Ultra 7 in single-thread Passmark results by 2.6% (4147 vs 4043).

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

A: The biggest difference appears in the Passmark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 outscores the Core 5 by 46.9% (326 vs 173). The Core 5's integer math win at 40.8% is the second-largest delta.

Q: How do their thread counts differ and does it matter?

A: The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 7 366H offers 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 has more physical cores but lacks simultaneous multithreading, which may explain why its multi-core lead in Cinebench is moderate despite the core advantage.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 221E supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 366H does not include this feature, which may matter for reliability-focused workloads.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H as the stronger overall performer. It wins 14 of 17 benchmark comparisons and holds a higher average score (41263 vs 40144). Its leads are particularly pronounced in encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, and floating point math, making it suitable for security, scientific, and simulation tasks. The 87th percentile ranking for both processors suggests they compete in a similar class, but the Ultra 7 consistently finishes ahead in most measurable categories.

The Intel Core 5 221E, however, is not without justification. Its 40.8% integer math advantage demonstrates superior performance in a specific workload class that many server and data processing applications depend on. The 2.6% single-thread Passmark win also indicates that for certain legacy or lightly threaded tasks, the Core 5 can edge out the Ultra 7. Desktop users with ECC requirements will find the Core 5's support valuable, as the Ultra 7 lacks this feature entirely.

Mobile users should favor the Ultra 7 given its 25 W thermal design power and mobile market segment, while desktop builders with higher thermal headroom (65 W TDP) may appreciate the Core 5's socket compatibility and larger L3 cache. The Core 5's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz contributes to its single-thread wins, but the Ultra 7's newer 3 nm process node and larger per-core caches (192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2) support its broader performance advantages.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 221E | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

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

| Cores | 14 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | null |

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

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 12 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $232 | null |