Intel Core 5 221TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 221TE takes a single victory. That one win, however, is significant: Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Core 5 221TE scores 11,305 against the Core Ultra 9 288V's 10,178, a margin of 11.1 percent. This suggests that in sustained all-core rendering workloads, the desktop part's 10 cores and 16 threads can outpace the mobile chip's 8 cores and 8 threads despite the latter's architectural advantages.

Outside of that single result, the Core Ultra 9 288V dominates. The largest deltas appear in single-threaded and lightly threaded tests. In PassMark single thread, the Core Ultra 9 288V scores 4,274 versus 1,734 for the Core 5 221TE, a 59.4 percent advantage. Cinebench R15 singlecore shows a similar story: 301.5 versus 160, a 46.9 percent gap. The Core Ultra 9 288V also leads in Cinebench R20 singlecore by 32.8 percent (997 versus 670) and in Cinebench R23 singlecore by 18.2 percent (1,950 versus 1,596).

The mobile chip's lead extends into multi-threaded tests beyond that one Cinebench R23 exception. Cinebench R15 multicore shows the Core Ultra 9 288V ahead by 28 percent (1,583 versus 1,139), and Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 32.8 percent lead (7,069 versus 4,748). PassMark multithread also favors the Core Ultra 9 288V by 32.9 percent (19,810 versus 13,301). The pattern is consistent: the Core Ultra 9 288V delivers substantially higher throughput in most workloads, while the Core 5 221TE only catches up in the specific rendering scenario measured by Cinebench R23 multicore.

Specialized workloads show even wider gaps. PassMark find prime numbers favors the Core Ultra 9 288V by 69.7 percent (195 versus 59). PassMark floating point math shows a 46.8 percent lead (59,536 versus 31,661). PassMark extended instructions gives the Core Ultra 9 288V a 38.2 percent advantage (15,613 versus 9,655). PassMark data encryption shows a 36.6 percent lead (14,141 versus 8,963). PassMark physics favors the Core Ultra 9 288V by 40.3 percent (1,637 versus 977). Even in integer math, where the margin is tightest outside of that Cinebench R23 result, the Core Ultra 9 288V still leads by 3.9 percent (44,019 versus 42,303).

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the stronger performer in almost every measured category. Its wins span single-threaded responsiveness, multi-threaded throughput, encryption, compression, physics simulation, and extended instruction sets. The PassMark data compression test shows the Core Ultra 9 288V ahead by 16 percent (186,521 versus 156,682), and random string sorting favors it by 25.2 percent (22,622 versus 16,929). These results point to a processor that handles a broad range of computing tasks with notably higher efficiency.

The Intel Core 5 221TE's single win in Cinebench R23 multicore deserves attention. That test measures sustained multi-core rendering performance, and the 11.1 percent margin suggests the desktop chip's additional cores and threads provide a real advantage in long-running, all-core workloads. The Core 5 221TE also has a higher TDP at 45 watts versus 30 watts, and it uses the larger Intel Socket 1700 platform, which may allow for better sustained power delivery in a desktop chassis.

For workloads like video rendering, 3D modeling, or other tasks that scale with core count over extended periods, the Core 5 221TE's Cinebench R23 result indicates it can hold its own. However, for nearly everything else, including single-threaded applications, encryption, compression, and physics calculations, the Core Ultra 9 288V delivers meaningfully higher scores. The average benchmark score also reflects this: the Core Ultra 9 288V averages 23,219 across all recorded tests, while the Core 5 221TE averages 17,860, a difference that places them 76th and 71st percentiles among all CPUs respectively.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the choice straightforward for most users. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V outperforms the Intel Core 5 221TE in 16 of 17 benchmark comparisons, often by substantial margins. Its single-thread performance is particularly strong, with a 59.4 percent lead in PassMark single thread and a 46.9 percent lead in Cinebench R15 singlecore. For anyone running typical desktop applications, office work, web browsing, or even demanding creative software that benefits from strong single-core performance, the Core Ultra 9 288V is the clear pick.

The Intel Core 5 221TE appeals to a narrower set of users. Its Cinebench R23 multicore victory by 11.1 percent shows that in sustained all-core rendering, the additional two cores and eight threads can outperform the mobile chip's architecture. The Core 5 221TE also supports ECC memory, a feature the Core Ultra 9 288V lacks, and it uses the widely available Intel Socket 1700 platform with DDR4 and DDR5 memory support. For a workstation that prioritizes multi-threaded rendering and requires ECC memory, the Core 5 221TE makes sense.

For general-purpose computing, the data favors the Core Ultra 9 288V without qualification. It achieves a higher percentile ranking at 76 versus 71, and its average benchmark score of 23,219 sits 30 percent above the Core 5 221TE's 17,860. The mobile chip's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-11900F and AMD Ryzen 7 5800H, both with average scores within 0.2 percent, indicating it competes with much older high-end desktop parts despite its mobile form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V leads in every single-threaded benchmark recorded. PassMark single thread shows 4,274 versus 1,734, a 59.4 percent advantage. Cinebench R15 singlecore shows 301.5 versus 160, Cinebench R20 singlecore shows 997 versus 670, and Cinebench R23 singlecore shows 1,950 versus 1,596.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 221TE win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins Cinebench R23 multicore with a score of 11,305 against the Core Ultra 9 288V's 10,178, a margin of 11.1 percent. This is the only head-to-head test it wins out of the 17 recorded.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ?

A: The Intel Core 5 221TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 221TE's additional cores and threads contribute to its Cinebench R23 multicore win.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has an average benchmark score of 23,219, while the Intel Core 5 221TE averages 17,860. The Core Ultra 9 288V also ranks at the 76th percentile among all CPUs, compared to 71st for the Core 5 221TE.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 221TE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V does not. This makes the Core 5 221TE more suitable for reliability-focused workstation builds.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 5 221TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V supports LPDDR5X memory with dual-channel configuration and 136.5 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design approaches. The Intel Core 5 221TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on Intel's 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. It features a die size of 215 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and codename, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. Its die size is not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. 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 9 288V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 288V's larger per-core caches help explain its strong single-thread performance, while the Core 5 221TE's larger L3 cache may benefit certain multi-threaded workloads.

Memory architecture also differs. The Core 5 221TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 288V uses LPDDR5X memory with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, nearly double the bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 288V also has fewer PCIe lanes: Gen 5 with 4 lanes, compared to the Core 5 221TE's Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The Core 5 221TE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 9 288V does not.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 221TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 288V uses Arc 140V. The processors also target different market segments: the Core 5 221TE is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 288V is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2833.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core 5 221TE and Intel Core Ultra 9 288V differ across several recorded specifications. The Core 5 221TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ: 1.80 GHz for the Core 5 221TE versus 3.30 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 288V. Boost clocks are closer, with the Core 5 221TE reaching 5.00 GHz and the Core Ultra 9 288V reaching 5.10 GHz.

TDP differs significantly: the Core 5 221TE has a 45 watt TDP, while the Core Ultra 9 288V has a 30 watt TDP. The socket types differ, with the Core 5 221TE using Intel Socket 1700 and the Core Ultra 9 288V using Intel BGA 2833. The process nodes differ: 10 nm for the Core 5 221TE versus 3 nm for the Core Ultra 9 288V, with different foundries (Intel versus TSMC).

Cache configurations differ as described above, with the Core 5 221TE having 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3, versus the Core Ultra 9 288V's 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Memory support differs (DDR4/DDR5 versus LPDDR5X), memory bandwidth differs (76.8 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s), ECC support differs (true versus false), and PCIe lanes differ (Gen 5 16 lanes versus Gen 5 4 lanes). Integrated graphics differ (UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc 140V). The launch MSRP for the Core 5 221TE is $232, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 9 288V.