Intel Core 5 221TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 wins every single recorded benchmark in this comparison. Out of 17 head-to-head tests, it takes all 17, leaving the Intel Core 5 221TE with zero victories. The scale of the margin varies wildly by workload, which reveals where each processor's architecture has its strengths and weaknesses.

The most dramatic separation appears in the PassMark extended instructions test. The Core Ultra 5 225 scores 27,162 against the Core 5 221TE's 9,655, a delta of -64.5% for the older chip. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire dataset. It suggests the Arrow Lake design's instruction handling is substantially more efficient per clock, or that its newer microarchitecture simply executes these workloads with far greater parallelism.

The single-core results paint a similar picture. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 225 posts 3,655 points versus 1,596 for the Core 5 221TE, a -56.3% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4,412 against 1,734, a -60.7% gap. These are not small differences; they indicate a generational leap in per-thread performance. The Core Ultra 5 225's boost clock is 4.90 GHz, slightly lower than the Core 5 221TE's 5.00 GHz, yet it still delivers roughly 2.5 times the single-thread throughput. Clock speed alone cannot explain this, the architectural efficiency must be doing the heavy lifting.

Multi-core results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R23 multi-core gives the Core Ultra 5 225 a score of 25,891, while the Core 5 221TE manages only 11,305, again a -56.3% delta. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows 2,609 versus 1,139, also -56.3%. Interestingly, the Cinebench R20 multi-core gap narrows considerably to -24.8%, with scores of 6,317 and 4,748. This anomaly suggests the R20 workload scales differently with the two architectures, perhaps due to thread scheduling or power delivery characteristics.

PassMark integer math shows the smallest overall gap at -35.3%, with the Core Ultra 5 225 scoring 65,345 against 42,303. This workload appears less sensitive to the architectural differences, though the newer chip still holds a clear lead. Floating-point math, by contrast, shows a -65.6% delta, with scores of 92,038 and 31,661. The Core Ultra 5 225's FP units are clearly far more capable.

Data compression and encryption also favor the Core Ultra 5 225 heavily. Compression scores are 302,811 versus 156,682, a -48.3% delta. Encryption shows 22,285 versus 8,963, a -59.8% delta. Prime number finding is the most lopsided of all: 358 versus 59, a -83.5% delta. This workload, which is highly sensitive to integer division and branch prediction, demonstrates how completely the newer architecture outclasses the older one in that specific operation.

Physics simulation in PassMark gives the Core Ultra 5 225 a score of 2,342 versus 977, a -58.3% delta. Random string sorting shows 36,590 versus 16,929, a -53.7% delta. The overall average benchmark score reflects this dominance: the Core Ultra 5 225 sits at 36,938, while the Core 5 221TE sits at 17,860, roughly half the performance.

The percentile rankings confirm this. The Core Ultra 5 225 lands in the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 221TE lands in the 71st. That 14-point gap places them in different performance tiers entirely. The nearest rivals for each chip also show where they sit in the broader market: the Core 5 221TE trades nearly evenly with the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and Intel Core 5 120U, while the Core Ultra 5 225 matches the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and sits just below the Intel Core i9-12900T.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no room for ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is the superior processor in every measured dimension. Anyone choosing between these two strictly on performance should select the Core Ultra 5 225 without hesitation. Its 85th percentile ranking versus the 71st percentile of the Core 5 221TE places it in a higher competitive class.

The Core 5 221TE is not a weak processor in absolute terms. Its average benchmark score of 17,860 is respectable, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, a well-regarded desktop chip. But the Core Ultra 5 225's average score of 36,938 is more than double. The gap is so consistent across all 17 tests that no workload in the database favors the older chip.

The Core Ultra 5 225 also reaches its 85th percentile with a launch MSRP of $246. The Core 5 221TE carries a launch MSRP of $232. The price difference is small relative to the performance difference. The data suggests the Core Ultra 5 225 delivers dramatically more throughput for a modest increase in launch price.

The Core 5 221TE does have one advantage: it supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 5 225 does not. For users who require error-correcting memory, this could be a deciding factor. The Core 5 221TE also supports DDR4, which means it can be paired with older, more affordable memory platforms. But in raw compute terms, the verdict is clear.

The Core Ultra 5 225 is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand high single-thread performance, heavy multi-threaded rendering, or intensive data operations. The Core 5 221TE is only relevant for systems that require ECC support or DDR4 compatibility, where its performance deficit is acceptable given those constraints.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design eras. The Core 5 221TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 225 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and is built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. This process difference is likely the single largest factor in the performance gap. A 3 nm node offers substantially better transistor density and power efficiency than a 10 nm node, which directly translates into higher achievable clock speeds and lower power consumption per operation.

The transistor counts reflect this. The Core Ultra 5 225 contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 5 221TE's transistor count is not recorded in the database, but its die size is listed as 215 mm². The newer chip packs far more transistors into a slightly larger area, enabling more complex execution units, larger caches, and deeper out-of-order buffers.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Core 5 221TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 225 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The per-core L1 and L2 caches are substantially larger on the Core Ultra 5 225, which explains its massive single-thread advantage. Larger per-core caches reduce memory latency and improve the efficiency of loops and repeated data access. The Core 5 221TE has more L3 cache in total, 24 MB versus 20 MB, but this does not compensate for the smaller per-core caches.

The core counts are identical: 10 cores each. But the thread counts differ. The Core 5 221TE supports 16 threads, meaning it has hyperthreading or a similar simultaneous multithreading implementation. The Core Ultra 5 225 supports only 10 threads, one per core. Despite having 40% more threads, the Core 5 221TE still loses every multi-threaded benchmark by a wide margin. This indicates that the Core Ultra 5 225's individual cores are so much faster that they overcome the thread count disadvantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 225 scores 25,891 with 10 threads, while the Core 5 221TE scores 11,305 with 16 threads. The per-thread efficiency difference is enormous.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 221TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 225 supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth reflects this: the Core 5 221TE delivers 76.8 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 5 225 delivers 102.4 GB/s. The newer chip's higher bandwidth helps feed its faster cores, particularly in memory-bound workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 221TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the practical impact is not measured, but the architecture is clearly newer on the Core Ultra 5 225.

PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 5 221TE provides 16 Gen 5 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 225 provides 20 Gen 5 lanes. This gives the Core Ultra 5 225 more headroom for expansion cards and NVMe storage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications. The Core 5 221TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads. The base clock differs: 1.80 GHz for the Core 5 221TE versus 3.30 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 225. The boost clock is slightly higher on the Core 5 221TE at 5.00 GHz versus 4.90 GHz, but this does not translate into performance wins.

Thermal design power differs: the Core 5 221TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 225 has a TDP of 65 watts. The higher TDP on the Core Ultra 5 225 allows it to sustain higher clocks under load, which contributes to its multi-core dominance.

The socket is a major difference. The Core 5 221TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Intel Socket 1851. These are not interchangeable, so a motherboard choice dictates which processor can be used.

The process node and foundry differ: 10 nm at Intel for the Core 5 221TE, 3 nm at TSMC for the Core Ultra 5 225. The Core Ultra 5 225 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; the Core 5 221TE has a 215 mm² die with no recorded transistor count.

Cache differs: the Core 5 221TE has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB L3 shared. The Core Ultra 5 225 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB L3 shared.

Memory support differs: the Core 5 221TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 225 supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 221TE and 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 225. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 221TE but not on the Core Ultra 5 225.

PCIe lanes differ: 16 Gen 5 lanes for the Core 5 221TE, 20 Gen 5 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 225. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU.

Release dates are close: the Core 5 221TE launched on 2025-01-12, and the Core Ultra 5 225 launched on 2025-01-06. Both are active production parts. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36,938, while the Intel Core 5 221TE has an average score of 17,860.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 scores 25,891, while the Core 5 221TE scores 11,305, a delta of -56.3% for the older chip.

Q: Does the Core 5 221TE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 5 221TE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 225 does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core 5 221TE has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 5 225 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the thread count difference?

A: The Core 5 221TE has 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 threads. The older chip has more threads but still loses all multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: Which chip uses a smaller process node?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC, while the Core 5 221TE uses a 10 nm process node from Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 225 wins every benchmark in the database, so the use-case split is not about performance wins but about specific requirements and workloads where its advantages matter most.

For single-threaded applications, such as legacy software, web browsing, or lightly threaded productivity tools, the Core Ultra 5 225 is the clear choice. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,412 versus 1,734 is more than double, and its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,655 versus 1,596 shows a similar margin. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, 192 KB and 3 MB respectively, give it a substantial latency advantage.

For multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, or scientific computing, the Core Ultra 5 225 again dominates. Despite having only 10 threads versus 16, it scores 25,891 in Cinebench R23 multi-core against 11,305. The 3 nm process node and higher base clock of 3.30 GHz allow it to sustain heavy workloads more effectively.

For data-heavy operations, the Core Ultra 5 225 is the winner. Its memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s helps in compression and encryption tasks. The PassMark data compression score of 302,811 versus 156,682 confirms this. Its 20 Gen 5 PCIe lanes also provide more headroom for high-speed storage.

The Core 5 221TE's only meaningful advantages are in platform compatibility. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for systems where data integrity is paramount, such as file servers or workstations handling financial data. It also supports DDR4, allowing builders to reuse older memory modules and motherboards on Socket 1700. Its lower TDP of 45 watts makes it a fit for compact or low-power systems, though the performance penalty is severe.

The Core Ultra 5 225 is the appropriate pick for nearly all desktop workloads. The Core 5 221TE is only defensible when ECC support or DDR4 compatibility is an absolute requirement. In every other scenario, the database shows the Core Ultra 5 225 as the superior processor.