Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Intel Core 5 221E and Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus occupy different ends of the performance spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that clearly. The Core 5 221E is a desktop processor built for consistent, efficient work, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile flagship designed to push multi-threaded workloads as far as possible. Across the recorded head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 9 wins 15 of 17 comparisons, but the Core 5 takes two single-core victories in Cinebench R15 and R23, which matters for specific applications.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates almost every multi-threaded and throughput-oriented test in the database. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 5981 against 2613 for the Core 5 221E, a 56.3% advantage. The gap persists in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Ultra 9 scores 21198 versus 10891, and in Cinebench R23 multicore, where it reaches 39684 against 25933. Passmark tests follow the same pattern: data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithread, physics, and random string sorting all go to the Ultra 9, with deltas ranging from 28.5% to 66.7%. This is a clear win for heavy parallel workloads like rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, and large data processing.

The Intel Core 5 221E wins only two tests, but both are single-core Cinebench runs. In Cinebench R15 singlecore, it scores 368 versus 340 for the Ultra 9, an 8.2% lead. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the margin is much larger: 3661 versus 2356, a 55.4% advantage. These results suggest the Core 5 has an edge in lightly threaded applications that depend on one strong core, such as older games, certain productivity tools, or real-time control tasks. However, the Ultra 9 counters in Passmark single-thread (4951 versus 4147, a 16.2% lead), so the Core 5's single-core advantage is not universal across all test suites.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families with distinct design philosophies. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. It is a desktop part with 14 cores and 20 threads, meaning it uses a hybrid arrangement where some cores provide additional threads. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, and is built on a 3 nm process node by TSMC. It is a mobile processor with 24 cores and 24 threads, indicating a design where every core handles one thread, likely a mix of performance and efficiency cores without hyperthreading.

Cache structures 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. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. That larger cache hierarchy gives the Ultra 9 more on-chip storage for frequently accessed data, which supports its higher throughput in multi-threaded tests. Transistor count is listed only for the Ultra 9 at 17,800 million, while die size is 257 mm² for the Core 5 and 243 mm² for the Ultra 9, a small difference despite the Core 5 using an older node.

Memory support also differs. The Core 5 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 across a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but at a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes favor the Ultra 9 with Gen 5 and 20 lanes, while the Core 5 has Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5, versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Ultra 9, which is a more capable iGPU for media tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus comes in Passmark find prime numbers, where it scores 519 against 173 for the Core 5 221E, a 66.7% delta. That test is highly sensitive to core count and integer execution throughput, so the 24-core Ultra 9 runs away with it. Passmark extended instructions shows a 64.5% gap (51290 versus 18216), and Passmark data encryption shows 61.6% (50008 versus 19205). These are compute-heavy workloads where more cores and higher memory bandwidth matter directly.

Cinebench R20 singlecore is the only test where the Ultra 9 wins despite the Core 5 having a single-core win elsewhere. The Ultra 9 scores 2992 versus 1537, a 48.6% delta. That is a surprising reversal compared to Cinebench R23 singlecore, where the Core 5 wins by 55.4%. The discrepancy indicates that different Cinebench versions weight instructions differently, and the Core 5's older architecture performs better in R23's specific workload while the Ultra 9 handles R20 more efficiently.

The Core 5 221E's other win is Cinebench R15 singlecore, where it leads 368 to 340, an 8.2% margin. That is a modest but real advantage in a legacy benchmark. In Passmark single-thread, the Ultra 9 wins 4951 to 4147, a 16.2% lead, so the Core 5's single-core superiority is limited to Cinebench variants rather than being a general property.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Core 5 221E boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz. Both have a base clock of 2.70 GHz.

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Core 5 221E wins 2, both in Cinebench single-core tests.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 221E has 89.6 GB/s. The Ultra 9 also supports only DDR5, while the Core 5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Core 5 221E uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses a 3 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 5 221E does not.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward split. For multi-threaded workloads, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the clear choice. It leads in every Cinebench multicore test, every Passmark throughput test, and overall Passmark multithread by 59439 versus 30510, a 48.7% margin. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of L3, and higher memory bandwidth deliver a decisive advantage in rendering, encoding, and compute-heavy tasks. The 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs, compared to 87th for the Core 5, reinforces that position.

For users running older or lightly threaded software, the Intel Core 5 221E has a specific appeal. Its Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 3661 versus 2356 for the Ultra 9 shows a 55.4% advantage, and it also wins Cinebench R15 singlecore. That makes it suitable for applications that rely on a single strong core and do not scale across many threads. However, the Ultra 9 wins Passmark single-thread by 16.2%, so the Core 5's advantage is not consistent across all single-threaded tests.

The desktop versus mobile distinction matters. The Core 5 221E is a desktop part on Socket 1700 with a 65 W TDP and a launch MSRP of $232. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile part on BGA 2114 with a 55 W TDP, unlockable multiplier, and no listed launch price. The Core 5 targets a fixed desktop build with flexibility for DDR4 or DDR5, while the Ultra 9 fits into a high-end laptop or compact mobile workstation where multi-core performance is the priority. The recorded benchmarks show that the Ultra 9 delivers roughly double the average score in many tests, but the Core 5 offers a stronger single-core result in specific Cinebench workloads, which may matter for niche use cases.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 221E | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus |

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

| Cores | 14 | 24 |

| Threads | 20 | 24 |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 243 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $232 | Not listed |