Intel Core 5 221TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Intel Core 5 221TE and Intel Core Ultra 7 255H represent two distinct design philosophies from Intel, one aimed at desktop systems and the other at mobile platforms. The Core 5 221TE is a Bartlett Lake part on the LGA 1700 socket, while the Core Ultra 7 255H is an Arrow Lake-H mobile processor on the BGA 2049 package. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the specific strengths of each chip tell a more nuanced story.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 5 221TE has 10 cores. Both processors support 16 threads.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H boosts up to 5.10 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 221TE boosts up to 5.00 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has an average benchmark score of 33537, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 221TE has an average score of 17860, which places it in the 71st percentile.

Q: Which chip has a larger L2 cache per core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 3 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Intel Core 5 221TE has 1.25 MB per core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 221TE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H supports 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, whereas the Intel Core 5 221TE supports 76.8 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The Intel Core 5 221TE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture and is fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node, with a die size of 215 mm². In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H uses the Arrow Lake architecture (specifically Arrow Lake-H) and is fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process node. The Core Ultra 7 255H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, while the Core 5 221TE has no series designation.

Core and thread configurations differ significantly. The Core 5 221TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning the Core Ultra 7 does not rely on hyper-threading to reach its thread count. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the Core 5 221TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. Both share 24 MB of L3 cache.

Memory support and I/O capabilities also separate the two. The Core 5 221TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration, while the Core Ultra 7 255H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel. The Core Ultra 7 255H has higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. PCIe connectivity favors the Core Ultra 7 255H with Gen 5 and 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 221TE offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 221TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 255H uses Arc Graphics 140T.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results show 17 recorded comparisons, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H winning 16 of them. The sole win for the Intel Core 5 221TE comes in Cinebench R23 multicore, where it scores 11305 against the Core Ultra 7 255H's 9240, a 22.3% advantage. This result suggests the Core 5 221TE can deliver strong sustained multicore performance in certain rendering workloads, likely due to its higher TDP envelope of 45 watts compared to 28 watts.

Beyond that single win, the Core Ultra 7 255H dominates across every other measured workload. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 1515 versus 1139, a 24.8% lead. The single-core gap in Cinebench R15 is even larger: 251 versus 160, a 36.3% advantage. Cinebench R20 shows consistent margins of 25.6% in both multicore (6381 vs 4748) and single-core (900 vs 670). Cinebench R23 single-core also favors the Core Ultra 7 255H, with a score of 1843 versus 1596, a 13.4% lead.

Passmark results reveal the most dramatic differences. The Core Ultra 7 255H scores 298850 in data compression versus 156682, a 47.6% advantage. Data encryption shows a 61.7% gap (23395 vs 8963). Extended instructions tests show a 59.4% lead (23755 vs 9655). Prime number finding sees the largest relative difference at 80.5% (303 vs 59). Floating point math shows a 68% advantage (98796 vs 31661), while integer math shows 77975 versus 42303, a 45.7% lead. Multithread performance is 30703 versus 13301, a 56.7% gap. Physics simulation shows 2254 versus 977, also a 56.7% difference. Random string sorting favors the Core Ultra 7 255H at 36058 versus 16929, a 53.1% lead. Single-thread performance in Passmark shows 4317 versus 1734, a 59.8% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255H.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The Core Ultra 7 255H averages 33537, which is 87.8% higher than the Core 5 221TE's 17860. The Core Ultra 7 255H's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 240 with a delta of 0%, the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS at -0.4%, the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX at -0.4%, and the Intel Core i5-12600HX at 0.5%. The Core 5 221TE sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at -0.2%, Intel Core 5 120U at -0.2%, Intel Core 7 350 at 0.5%, and AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at -0.7%.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences between the two processors. The Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores, while the Core 5 221TE has 10 cores, though both have 16 threads. Base clocks differ at 2.00 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 255H versus 1.80 GHz for the Core 5 221TE. Boost clocks are close, with 5.10 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP ratings diverge significantly: the Core 5 221TE is rated at 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 255H is rated at 28 watts.

Socket types differ completely: the Core 5 221TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 255H uses Intel BGA 2049. Process nodes are 10 nm for the Core 5 221TE and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 7 255H, with different foundries (Intel versus TSMC). The Core 5 221TE has a die size of 215 mm², while the Core Ultra 7 255H has no recorded die size. L1 cache per core is 80 KB versus 192 KB, and L2 cache per core is 1.25 MB versus 3 MB. L3 cache is identical at 24 MB shared.

Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 5 221TE, versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core Ultra 7 255H. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 16 for the Core 5 221TE and 20 for the Core Ultra 7 255H, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Graphics 140T. Market segments are Desktop for the Core 5 221TE and Mobile for the Core Ultra 7 255H. The Core 5 221TE has a launch MSRP of $232, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has no recorded launch MSRP. Part numbers are SRVQS and SRQAN respectively. Both processors are Active in production, released on the same date, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the clear performance leader across nearly the entire benchmark suite. Its wins span rendering, encryption, math operations, compression, and single-threaded workloads. The data shows it delivers between 13.4% and 80.5% higher scores than the Core 5 221TE across 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its 16-core configuration, larger cache hierarchy, and 3 nm process node from TSMC contribute to its dominance. The 83rd percentile ranking versus 71st for the Core 5 221TE confirms its overall position in the database.

The Intel Core 5 221TE wins only in Cinebench R23 multicore, where its 45-watt TDP likely allows sustained high clocks that overcome the Core Ultra 7 255H's 28-watt constraint. This makes it a reasonable choice for workloads that resemble Cinebench R23's rendering pattern, where the desktop part can draw more power and maintain performance over longer durations. Its LGA 1700 socket also makes it compatible with desktop motherboards, which may appeal to users with existing platforms.

For general-purpose computing, the data strongly favors the Core Ultra 7 255H. The 56.7% lead in multithread and 59.8% lead in single-thread Passmark scores are representative of its overall capability. The 80.5% advantage in prime number finding indicates superior integer throughput, while the 68% lead in floating point math shows strength in scientific and analytical workloads. The 61.7% gap in encryption and 47.6% gap in compression suggest the Core Ultra 7 255H is better suited for data-heavy tasks.

The Core 5 221TE remains competitive only in specific rendering scenarios. Its 22.3% win in Cinebench R23 multicore stands as the single counter-example to the Core Ultra 7 255H's dominance. This result is notable because Cinebench R23 is a widely used benchmark, but it does not offset the broader pattern. The Core 5 221TE's 45-watt TDP and desktop orientation indicate it targets systems where power draw is less constrained, whereas the Core Ultra 7 255H's 28-watt TDP suits mobile platforms where efficiency matters more.

Both processors share the same 24 MB L3 cache and support ECC memory, but the Core Ultra 7 255H's other advantages in cache size, process node, and memory bandwidth make it the superior choice for most workloads. The Core 5 221TE's single benchmark win demonstrates that desktop-oriented parts can still outperform mobile parts in specific sustained workloads, but the recorded data shows the Core Ultra 7 255H as the overall winner with 16 head-to-head victories.