Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, which wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core 5 221E secures only 2 wins, both in Cinebench single-core tests, but the margin and scope of the Ultra 9's dominance across multi-core and specialized workloads is substantial.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 5619.5 against the Core 5 221E's 2613, a delta of 53.5% in favor of the Ultra 9. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern with scores of 19899 versus 10891, a 45.3% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 posts 35589 against 25933, a 27.1% lead.

The Core 5 221E's two victories are notable for their size. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 368 versus 334, a 10.2% edge. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap expands dramatically: 3661 against 2204, a 66.1% margin. This indicates the Core 5 221E holds a significant single-thread advantage in at least one major rendering workload, while the Ultra 9 counters in R20 single-core with 2809 versus 1537, a 45.3% lead.

PassMark results consistently favor the Ultra 9. Data encryption shows 47112 versus 19205, a 59.2% difference. Extended instructions deliver 47016 versus 18216, a 61.3% gap. Prime number finding scores 448 versus 173, a 61.4% margin. Floating point math reaches 191186 versus 79028, a 58.7% advantage. Random string sorting lands at 74320 versus 37686, a 49.3% gap. Data compression records 608381 versus 324285, a 46.7% difference. Multithread scores 55759 versus 30510, a 45.3% lead. Physics tests show 3338 versus 2230, a 33.2% margin. Integer math delivers 155218 versus 117813, a 24.1% advantage.

The smallest Ultra 9 win is in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4713 against 4147, a 12% margin. That result stands in contrast to the Cinebench single-core outcomes, where the Core 5 221E wins twice, suggesting workload-specific behavior in single-thread performance rather than a universal advantage.

The average benchmark score reinforces the overall positioning: the Core Ultra 9 275HX averages 67469, while the Core 5 221E averages 40144. The Ultra 9 sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 221E sits at the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 221E include the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 at 40081 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 at 40048 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen 9 270 at 40246 (0.3% lower), and the Intel Core i9-13905H at 40313 (0.4% lower). The Ultra 9's nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon w5-3525 at 67673 (0.3% lower), the AMD EPYC 4484PX at 67822 (0.5% lower), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX at 67868 (0.6% lower), and the Intel Xeon 6515P at 67006 (0.7% higher).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 221E wins 2 tests.

Q: Does the Core 5 221E have any single-core advantage?

A: Yes, it wins Cinebench R15 single-core with 368 versus 334 (10.2% higher) and Cinebench R23 single-core with 3661 versus 2204 (66.1% higher). However, the Ultra 9 wins Cinebench R20 single-core with 2809 versus 1537 (45.3% higher) and PassMark single-thread with 4713 versus 4147 (12% higher).

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Ultra 9 leads by 53.5% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 45.3% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 27.1% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. PassMark multithread shows a 45.3% advantage for the Ultra 9.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The Core Ultra 9 275HX has an average benchmark score of 67469, while the Core 5 221E averages 40144. The Ultra 9 ranks at the 94th percentile versus the 87th percentile for the Core 5 221E.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 275HX has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the Core 5 221E has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Both have the same base clock of 2.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 5 221E supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX does not.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in architecture, process node, and physical design. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 9 275HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename with a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 9 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, while the Core 5 221E is listed under the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating hyper-threading support. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, which means no hyper-threading and a pure physical-core design. The Ultra 9's transistor count is listed at 17,800 million, a figure not provided for the Core 5 221E. Die sizes are close: 257 mm² for the Core 5 221E versus 243 mm² for the Ultra 9.

Cache hierarchies are distinct. The Core 5 221E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, combined with a larger L3 pool, contribute to its throughput advantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 9 at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 5 221E. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 221E but not on the Ultra 9.

PCI Express lane counts differ. The Core 5 221E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 275HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Socket and form factor separate the two. The Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop segment part. The Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Intel BGA 2114 and is classified as a mobile segment part. The multiplier unlock status also differs: the Core 5 221E is locked, while the Ultra 9 is unlocked.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split in intended roles. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is the stronger processor in nearly every measurable workload, winning 15 of 17 comparisons. Its average benchmark score of 67469 places it at the 94th percentile, and its nearest rivals include workstation and server-class parts like the Intel Xeon w5-3525 and AMD EPYC 4484PX. This is a high-throughput part for multi-core rendering, encryption, compression, and floating-point workloads.

The Intel Core 5 221E, with an average benchmark score of 40144 and an 87th percentile ranking, sits in a lower performance tier. Its nearest rivals are mainstream desktop and mobile parts like the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and Intel Core i9-13905H. Its two wins in Cinebench single-core tests, particularly the 66.1% margin in R23 single-core, indicate a genuine strength in lightly threaded rendering workloads.

The Core 5 221E's advantages also include ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, and a desktop socket (Intel Socket 1700) that allows conventional motherboard mounting. The Ultra 9 is a mobile BGA part with no ECC and DDR5-only support. The Core 5 221E also carries a launch MSRP of $232, a detail recorded in the database. The Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP.

For workloads that demand maximum throughput across many cores, the Core Ultra 9 275HX is the clear choice based on the benchmark data. For single-thread rendering in specific Cinebench versions, ECC memory requirements, or DDR4 compatibility, the Core 5 221E shows a measurable edge. The 55 W TDP of the Ultra 9 versus the 65 W TDP of the Core 5 221E also indicates the mobile part delivers higher performance at a lower thermal envelope, a significant efficiency result.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show the following differences between the two processors:

• Cores: Core 5 221E has 14, Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24.
• Threads: Core 5 221E has 20, Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24.
• Boost clock: Core 5 221E has 5.20 GHz, Core Ultra 9 275HX has 5.40 GHz.
• TDP: Core 5 221E has 65, Core Ultra 9 275HX has 55.
• Socket: Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700, Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Intel BGA 2114.
• Architecture: Core 5 221E has no listed architecture, Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Arrow Lake.
• Codename: Core 5 221E is Bartlett Lake, Core Ultra 9 275HX is Arrow Lake-HX.
• Generation: Core 5 221E is Core 5 (Bartlett Lake), Core Ultra 9 275HX is Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX).
• Process node: Core 5 221E is 10 nm, Core Ultra 9 275HX is 3 nm.
• Foundry: Core 5 221E is Intel, Core Ultra 9 275HX is TSMC.
• Transistors: Core 5 221E has no listed count, Core Ultra 9 275HX has 17,800 million.
• Die size: Core 5 221E is 257 mm², Core Ultra 9 275HX is 243 mm².
• L1 cache: Core 5 221E has 80 KB per core, Core Ultra 9 275HX has 192 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Core 5 221E has 2 MB per core, Core Ultra 9 275HX has 3 MB per core.
• L3 cache: Core 5 221E has 24 MB shared, Core Ultra 9 275HX has 36 MB shared.
• Memory support: Core 5 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5, Core Ultra 9 275HX supports DDR5 only.
• Memory bandwidth: Core 5 221E has 89.6 GB/s, Core Ultra 9 275HX has 102.4 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Core 5 221E supports it, Core Ultra 9 275HX does not.
• PCIe: Core 5 221E has Gen 5, 16 lanes, Core Ultra 9 275HX has Gen 5, 20 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.
• Market segment: Core 5 221E is desktop, Core Ultra 9 275HX is mobile.
• Multiplier unlocked: Core 5 221E is locked, Core Ultra 9 275HX is unlocked.
• Part number: Core 5 221E is SRQDVQ659, Core Ultra 9 275HX is SRVFK.
• Launch MSRP: Core 5 221E is $232, Core Ultra 9 275HX has none recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins in all PassMark categories recorded: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread. It also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, and R23 multi-core. Its largest margins appear in prime number finding (61.4%), extended instructions (61.3%), and data encryption (59.2%). These results indicate strengths in cryptographic workloads, SIMD-heavy operations, and prime-number computation.

The Intel Core 5 221E wins Cinebench R15 single-core and Cinebench R23 single-core. The R23 margin of 66.1% is the largest single advantage recorded in either direction across all benchmarks. This suggests the Core 5 221E has a specific strength in single-threaded rendering tasks as measured by Cinebench R23, despite losing the R20 single-core test by 45.3%.

For multi-core rendering workloads, the Ultra 9 delivers 53.5% higher performance in R15, 45.3% higher in R20, and 27.1% higher in R23. For data compression, it delivers 46.7% more throughput. For memory-intensive sorting, it is 49.3% faster. For physics simulation, it is 33.2% faster.

The use-case split follows the benchmark pattern. The Core Ultra 9 275HX suits heavily threaded production workloads, encryption and compression pipelines, and floating-point or SIMD compute. The Core 5 221E suits single-thread rendering in Cinebench R15 and R23, ECC memory environments, and DDR4-based systems. The Ultra 9 also offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the Core 5 221E does not. The Ultra 9's lower TDP of 55 versus 65 further reinforces its efficiency advantage in sustained multi-core operation.