Intel Core 7 160UL vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225T Comparison

The Intel Core 7 160UL and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T are both desktop processors from Intel, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and performance tiers. The data shows a complete sweep for the Core Ultra 5 225T across all recorded benchmarks, with 17 wins and no wins for the Core 7 160UL. This comparison highlights the substantial generational and architectural gap between the two, moving from a power-efficient Raptor Lake design to a high-performance Arrow Lake processor.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark database records a perfect split: the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T wins every single test it shares with the Intel Core 7 160UL. There are no workloads in the recorded data where the Core 7 160UL comes out ahead.

The Core 7 160UL’s role is defined by its specifications rather than its benchmark victories. Its 15 W TDP and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory position it as a low-power desktop option. The Core Ultra 5 225T, with its 65 W TDP and DDR5-only support, claims every performance win. The data shows the Core Ultra 5 225T as the clear choice for any task where raw compute output matters, including single-threaded responsiveness, multi-threaded rendering, and specialized instruction workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on entirely different foundations. The Intel Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, fabricated on a 10 nm process by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T uses the Arrow Lake architecture, with the Arrow Lake-S codename, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC.

The Core Ultra 5 225T also has a significantly larger physical footprint, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The Core 7 160UL has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Memory support differs substantially. The Core 7 160UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 225T supports only DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 225T also records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure not listed for the Core 7 160UL. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 7 160UL uses Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 225T uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Cache hierarchies are distinct. The Core 7 160UL has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 225T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 7 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core Ultra 5 225T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units.

Both processors have 10 cores, but thread counts diverge. The Core 7 160UL supports 12 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading on some of its cores, while the Core Ultra 5 225T supports 10 threads, matching its core count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a dominant performance gap in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T. The largest relative difference appears in the PassMark extended instructions test, where the Core Ultra 5 225T scores 20,083 against 5,832 for the Core 7 160UL, a delta of -71%. This suggests a major advantage in specialized instruction execution.

In the PassMark find prime numbers test, the Core Ultra 5 225T scores 284 versus 50, a delta of -82.4%. This is the single largest percentage gap in the data, indicating a massive difference in this integer-heavy workload. Similarly, floating point math shows a -69% delta, with the Core Ultra 5 225T scoring 82,751 against 25,670.

The Cinebench suite confirms the trend across all versions. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 5 225T scores 21,971 versus 9,386, a -57.3% delta. Cinebench R23 single core shows 3,101 against 1,325, also a -57.3% delta. The R15 and R20 tests follow the same pattern, with the Core Ultra 5 225T consistently ahead by roughly 57% in both single-core and multi-core runs.

PassMark data compression shows the Core Ultra 5 225T at 233,998 versus 108,953, a -53.4% delta. Data encryption shows 18,289 against 7,146, a -60.9% delta. PassMark multithread shows 25,358 versus 11,043, a -56.5% delta, and physics shows 2,053 against 819, a -60.1% delta. Random string sorting shows 28,774 versus 11,843, a -58.8% delta.

The smaller deltas appear in integer math and single-thread tests. PassMark integer math shows the Core Ultra 5 225T at 59,543 versus 47,515, a -20.2% delta, the smallest gap in the entire comparison. PassMark single thread shows 4,348 against 3,391, a -22% delta. These smaller gaps indicate that while the Core Ultra 5 225T still leads, the Core 7 160UL is relatively closer in these specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has 12 threads from its 10 cores, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has 10 threads from its 10 cores.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 160UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T supports only DDR5.

Q: What is the difference in process node?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL uses a 10 nm process from Intel, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T uses a 3 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has an average benchmark score of 30,468, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has an average benchmark score of 14,232.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several key differences between the two processors. The Intel Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. The process nodes differ, with the Core 7 160UL on 10 nm and the Core Ultra 5 225T on 3 nm.

The Core 7 160UL has 12 threads, a base clock of 1.80 GHz, a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, and a TDP of 15 W. The Core Ultra 5 225T has 10 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, and a TDP of 65 W. The sockets differ, with the Core 7 160UL using Intel Socket 1700 and the Core Ultra 5 225T using Intel Socket 1851.

Cache sizes are larger on the Core Ultra 5 225T: 192 KB L1 per core versus 80 KB, 3 MB L2 per core versus 1.25 MB, and 20 MB shared L3 versus 12 MB. The Core Ultra 5 225T also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which is not listed for the Core 7 160UL. PCIe support differs, with Gen 4 and 8 lanes on the Core 7 160UL versus Gen 5 and 20 lanes on the Core Ultra 5 225T. Integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 96EU on the Core 7 160UL and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU on the Core Ultra 5 225T.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T outperforms the Intel Core 7 160UL in every single benchmark test, with 17 wins out of 17 recorded comparisons. The largest gaps appear in specialized and multi-threaded workloads, where the Core Ultra 5 225T leads by margins ranging from -53.4% in data compression to -82.4% in prime number finding. The smallest gap is in integer math at -20.2%, still a decisive lead for the Core Ultra 5 225T.

The Intel Core 7 160UL does have certain specification advantages: a higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz versus 4.90 GHz, support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and a much lower 15 W TDP. These features suggest a design focused on power efficiency and flexibility in memory choice. The Core Ultra 5 225T, with its 65 W TDP, larger caches, newer process node, and Gen 5 PCIe support, is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing performance across all measured workloads. The data indicates the Core Ultra 5 225T is the superior processor for every benchmarked task, with the Core 7 160UL serving a different, lower-power niche.