Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two processors is unusually sharp, with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H claiming 13 wins against 4 for the Intel Core 5 221E. The Ultra 9 dominates in nearly every PassMark workload category, including data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, multithreading, physics, and random string sorting. The Core 5 221E, however, holds decisive advantages in specific Cinebench tests and integer math, which points to fundamentally different strengths.

The Core 5 221E wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (368 vs 313, a 17.6% lead), Cinebench R23 multi-core (25933 vs 20781.5, a 24.8% lead), Cinebench R23 single-core (3661 vs 2129.5, a 71.9% lead), and PassMark integer math (117813 vs 85922, a 37.1% lead). These wins are concentrated in rendering workloads and integer-heavy tasks, suggesting the Core 5 221E excels in scenarios where sustained multi-threaded throughput and high single-thread performance matter, such as 3D rendering, video encoding, and general productivity applications that rely on integer operations.

The Ultra 9 285H wins across the remaining head-to-head tests, with particularly large margins in PassMark extended instructions (26794 vs 18216, a 32% lead), floating-point math (109190 vs 79028, a 27.6% lead), encryption (26140 vs 19205, a 26.5% lead), and prime number finding (330 vs 173, a 47.6% lead). These are workloads that benefit from modern instruction set extensions and efficient floating-point execution, such as scientific computing, cryptography, and data analytics.

The overall benchmark averages reflect this split. The Core 5 221E posts an average benchmark score of 40144, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 285H averages 38312, in the 86th percentile. The Core 5 221E sits within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and Ryzen AI 9 365, and within 0.3% of the Ryzen 9 270 in average score. The Ultra 9 285H is nearly tied with the Intel Core 9 270H (0.1% behind), the Intel Core i5-13600HX (0.1% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 (0.2% ahead). The data shows two processors aimed at different usage profiles, not a clear overall winner.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two Intel parts is substantial. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 257 mm². The Ultra 9 285H, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake-H codename on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. This process node difference is significant, as the 3 nm node typically enables higher transistor density and better power efficiency, though the die size for the Ultra 9 is not recorded in the database.

Core and thread counts differ notably. The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid configuration with performance and efficiency cores where some cores lack hyper-threading. The Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning no hyper-threading at all. Despite having more physical cores, the Ultra 9 has fewer threads, which partially explains why the Core 5 221E wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core despite having fewer cores.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 5 221E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 285H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and the same 24 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Ultra 9 help with workloads that exhibit high cache locality, while the shared L3 remains identical at 24 MB.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 5 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel operation and a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 5 221E offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 285H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop market, while the Ultra 9 285H uses Intel BGA 2049 and is a mobile processor. Integrated graphics differ as well: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 221E versus Arc Graphics 140T on the Ultra 9 285H.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 9 285H on paper, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to 2.70 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost on the Core 5 221E. However, the benchmark results show that raw clock speed does not always translate into performance wins, particularly in single-threaded Cinebench R15 and R23 where the Core 5 221E leads. The Ultra 9 285H also has a lower TDP of 45 watts versus 65 watts for the Core 5 221E, which is expected given its mobile orientation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single benchmark gap favors the Core 5 221E in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3661 against 2129.5 for the Ultra 9 285H, a 71.9% advantage. This is a striking result, as it suggests the Core 5 221E's single-core performance is far superior in this specific rendering test, possibly due to different core architectures or boost behavior under sustained load. The Core 5 221E also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a 24.8% lead (25933 vs 20781.5), and Cinebench R15 single-core with a 17.6% lead (368 vs 313).

In integer math, the Core 5 221E scores 117813 versus 85922 for the Ultra 9 285H, a 37.1% advantage. This is the second-largest margin in the head-to-head data and indicates that the Core 5 221E's integer execution units handle this workload with significantly higher throughput. The Ultra 9 285H's higher core count does not compensate for this gap, suggesting architectural differences in integer pipeline design.

The Ultra 9 285H's largest win comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 330 against 173, a 47.6% lead. This workload is highly sensitive to branch prediction and loop efficiency. The Ultra 9 also wins PassMark extended instructions by 32% (26794 vs 18216), floating-point math by 27.6% (109190 vs 79028), and data encryption by 26.5% (26140 vs 19205). These results indicate that the Ultra 9 285H's newer process node and larger per-core caches translate into meaningful advantages for instruction-heavy and floating-point workloads.

In Cinebench R20, the Ultra 9 285H wins both multi-core (12201 vs 10891, a 10.7% lead) and single-core (1722 vs 1537, a 10.7% lead). This is notable because the Core 5 221E wins in Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core, but loses in R20 single-core. The pattern suggests that different Cinebench versions stress different aspects of the core architecture, and the relationship between the two processors changes across versions.

PassMark multithread favors the Ultra 9 285H at 34171 versus 30510, a 10.7% lead, while PassMark single-thread also favors the Ultra 9 at 4415 versus 4147, a 6.1% lead. The Ultra 9 wins data compression by 3.4% (335859 vs 324285), random string sorting by 7.9% (40931 vs 37686), and physics by 11.3% (2513 vs 2230). These consistent, moderate wins across PassMark workloads give the Ultra 9 a broad but not overwhelming advantage in the majority of tested scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 221E has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The base clock also favors the Ultra 9 at 2.90 GHz versus 2.70 GHz.

Q: Why does the Core 5 221E win Cinebench R23 multi-core despite having fewer cores?

A: The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 221E's hyper-threading provides 20 threads, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core it scores 25933 versus 20781.5, a 24.8% lead, indicating that thread count and per-thread efficiency matter more than raw core count in this test.

Q: What is the largest performance margin in either direction?

A: The largest margin is the Core 5 221E's win in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3661 against 2129.5, a 71.9% advantage. The largest margin for the Ultra 9 285H is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 47.6% (330 vs 173).

Q: How do these processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 9 285H has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, compared to 89.6 GB/s for the Core 5 221E. Both support dual-channel memory, but the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core 5 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core 5 221E has an average benchmark score of 40144, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 9 285H has an average score of 38312, placing it in the 86th percentile.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 221E and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H have an active production status. Both were released on the same date.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 221E | Intel Core Ultra 9 285H |

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

| Series | None | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Cores | 14 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Generation | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-H) |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | 257 mm² | Not recorded |

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

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

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

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

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $232 | $651 |

| Part number | SRQDVQ659 | SRQAL |

The shared L3 cache is identical at 24 MB for both processors. Both support ECC memory, both have locked multipliers, and both are manufactured by Intel, though the Ultra 9 285H uses TSMC as the foundry for its 3 nm process.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core 5 221E is the stronger choice for rendering workloads and integer-heavy applications. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score leads by 71.9%, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score leads by 24.8%, which are substantial margins for users running CPU rendering or similar multi-threaded tasks. The 37.1% lead in PassMark integer math further supports this positioning for productivity software that relies on integer operations.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is the better option for workloads that leverage floating-point math, encryption, and extended instruction sets. Its wins in PassMark floating-point math (27.6% ahead), data encryption (26.5% ahead), and extended instructions (32% ahead) indicate a processor better suited for scientific computing, data processing, and security-related tasks. The 47.6% lead in prime number finding also points to strong branch prediction and loop efficiency.

The Core 5 221E achieves a higher average benchmark score of 40144 versus 38312 for the Ultra 9 285H, and it sits at the 87th percentile compared to the 86th for the Ultra 9. However, the Ultra 9 285H wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, giving it broader overall performance coverage. The Core 5 221E's wins are concentrated in fewer tests but with larger margins, particularly in Cinebench R23.

For desktop users with Intel Socket 1700 motherboards, the Core 5 221E offers a clear path for rendering performance with 20 threads and a 65 W TDP. For mobile users requiring lower power consumption (45 W TDP) and access to LPDDR5X memory, the Ultra 9 285H delivers more consistent performance across a wider range of workloads. The choice depends on whether the workload prioritizes the Core 5 221E's rendering and integer strengths or the Ultra 9 285H's floating-point and encryption capabilities.