Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison
Intel Core 5 221E
Core Ultra 9 288V
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V
The Verdict
The Intel Core 5 221E and Intel Core Ultra 9 288V occupy different corners of the processor market, and the benchmark data makes that split unusually clear. The Core 5 221E wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 40144 against 23219 for the Ultra 9 288V. The single-thread PassMark tests are the only meaningful victories for the Ultra 9 288V, along with one prime-number finding workload. The Core 5 221E sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 288V sits at the 76th percentile. The Core 5 221E is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700 with a 65 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 288V is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2833 with a 30 W TDP. The database indicates the Core 5 221E is the clear choice for multi-threaded desktop workloads, while the Ultra 9 288V suits constrained mobile environments where its lower power envelope and slightly higher single-thread PassMark score matter more.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different foundries. The Core 5 221E is built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 257 mm², codenamed Bartlett Lake. The Ultra 9 288V uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, codenamed Lunar Lake, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. The Core 5 221E provides 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 9 288V provides 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 221E and 3.30 GHz for the Ultra 9 288V, but boost clocks are closer: 5.20 GHz versus 5.10 GHz respectively.
Cache layouts differ substantially. The Core 5 221E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 288V has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 12 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X in dual-channel with 136.5 GB/s. The Core 5 221E supports ECC memory; the Ultra 9 288V does not.
PCIe connectivity also separates them. The Core 5 221E offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 9 288V offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, and the Ultra 9 288V uses Arc 140V. The Core 5 221E launched on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $232, while the Ultra 9 288V launched earlier on 2024-09-23 with no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
Where Each One Wins
The Core 5 221E dominates multi-threaded and most single-threaded CPU workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 25933 against 10178 for the Ultra 9 288V, a 154.8% advantage. PassMark integer math shows a 167.6% lead with 117813 versus 44019. Data compression, random string sorting, floating point math, physics, encryption, and extended instructions all favor the Core 5 221E by margins from 16.7% to 73.9%. The Core 5 221E also wins the Cinebench R15 single-core test with 368 versus 301.5, a 22.1% lead, and Cinebench R20 single-core with 1537 versus 997, a 54.2% lead.
The Ultra 9 288V wins only three head-to-head tests. In PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, both recorded at 4147 for the Core 5 221E and 4274 for the Ultra 9 288V, the Ultra 9 288V leads by 3%. In PassMark find prime numbers, the Ultra 9 288V scores 195 against 173, an 11.3% advantage. These wins indicate the Ultra 9 288V has a slight edge in a narrow set of single-threaded integer workloads, but its overall average benchmark score of 23219 places it far below the Core 5 221E's 40144.
The nearest rivals in the database reinforce the positioning. The Core 5 221E's average score of 40144 sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700, AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, AMD Ryzen 9 270, and Intel Core i9-13905H. The Ultra 9 288V's average score of 23219 sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core i9-11900F, AMD EPYC 4124P, AMD Ryzen 7 5800H, and Intel Core Ultra 7 266V. The Core 5 221E competes in a higher performance tier entirely.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads.
Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 136.5 GB/s of memory bandwidth with LPDDR5X support, while the Intel Core 5 221E has 89.6 GB/s with DDR4 and DDR5 support.
Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?
A: The Intel Core 5 221E wins with a score of 25933, a 154.8% advantage over the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V's 10178.
Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V win any benchmarks?
A: Yes, the Ultra 9 288V wins PassMark single-thread (4274 versus 4147, a 3% lead) and PassMark find prime numbers (195 versus 173, an 11.3% lead).
Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?
A: The Intel Core 5 221E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V does not.
Q: What are the socket requirements?
A: The Intel Core 5 221E uses Intel Socket 1700. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V uses Intel BGA 2833.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The largest single win for the Core 5 221E appears in PassMark integer math. The Core 5 221E scores 117813, while the Ultra 9 288V scores 44019, a 167.6% delta. This workload measures raw integer throughput, and the Core 5 221E's extra cores and threads translate directly into a massive advantage. The closest comparison in scale is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 221E's 25933 beats the Ultra 9 288V's 10178 by 154.8%. Both results reflect the Core 5 221E's 14-core, 20-thread configuration against the Ultra 9 288V's 8-core, 8-thread design.
Data compression shows a 73.9% lead for the Core 5 221E, with 324285 against 186521. Random string sorting follows at 66.6%, with 37686 against 22622. Cinebench R15 multi-core gives the Core 5 221E a 65.1% win, 2613 versus 1583. PassMark multithread shows 30510 versus 19810, a 54% delta, and Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 10891 versus 7069, a 54.1% delta. These results cluster around the same theme: the Core 5 221E's multi-threaded throughput is roughly 1.5 to 2.5 times that of the Ultra 9 288V across a wide range of workloads.
The Core 5 221E also leads in single-threaded Cinebench tests. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 368 versus 301.5, a 22.1% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1537 versus 997, a 54.2% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3661 versus 1950, an 87.7% lead. These are substantial margins for a desktop processor against a mobile processor, and they indicate that the Core 5 221E's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz combined with its larger L3 cache of 24 MB delivers stronger single-thread performance in Cinebench workloads.
Physics performance favors the Core 5 221E by 36.2%, with 2230 against 1637. Floating point math favors it by 32.7%, with 79028 against 59536. Data encryption favors it by 35.8%, with 19205 against 14141. Extended instructions favor it by 16.7%, with 18216 against 15613. The Ultra 9 288V's only wins are the 3% PassMark single-thread lead and the 11.3% find prime numbers lead, both narrow margins.
The average benchmark scores place the two processors in different competitive brackets. The Core 5 221E's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 at 40081 (0.2% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 at 40048 (0.2% lower), the AMD Ryzen 9 270 at 40246 (0.3% higher), and the Intel Core i9-13905H at 40313 (0.4% higher). The Ultra 9 288V's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-11900F at 23254 (0.2% higher), the AMD EPYC 4124P at 23167 (0.2% lower), the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H at 23277 (0.2% higher), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V at 23297 (0.3% higher). The Core 5 221E's score is nearly twice the Ultra 9 288V's score, and the rival sets confirm that these processors do not compete in the same performance segment. The Core 5 221E is an active desktop part with a 65 W TDP and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the Ultra 9 288V is an active mobile part with a 30 W TDP and 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The database records 14 wins for the Core 5 221E and 3 for the Ultra 9 288V across the head-to-head benchmark suite.