Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H and the Intel Core 7 240H are two mobile processors that occupy similar positions in the performance spectrum, yet they achieve their results through fundamentally different designs. The data shows that the Core Ultra 5 225H wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the Core 7 240H takes decisive victories in two specific workloads. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels, using the benchmark results to clarify their architectural trade-offs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has an average benchmark score of 31508, while the Intel Core 7 240H scores 31483. The delta between them is just 0.1%, making them statistically equivalent in overall performance.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225H leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1969 versus 1719 for the Core 7 240H, a 14.5% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the margin is 4258 versus 3782, a 12.6% win.

Q: Which chip wins in multi-core Cinebench benchmarks?

A: The results are split. The Core Ultra 5 225H wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (2397.5 vs 2360, +1.6%) and R20 multi-core (10041 vs 8562, +17.3%). However, the Core 7 240H wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 15764 versus 14629.5, a 7.2% margin.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in any single test?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 225H scores 220 versus 102 for the Core 7 240H, a massive 115.7% advantage. This is followed by a 46.9% lead in floating point math (86540 vs 58905).

Q: Are there any workloads where the Core 7 240H is clearly superior?

A: Yes, the Core 7 240H wins PassMark integer math with a score of 80396 versus 68520, a 14.8% advantage. It also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core, as noted above.

Q: Do both processors occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Core Ultra 5 225H and the Core 7 240H are listed at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, confirming their similar overall standing.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and manufacturing processes, which explains their divergent benchmark profiles. The Core Ultra 5 225H is built on Arrow Lake architecture using a 3 nm process node from TSMC, while the Core 7 240H uses Raptor Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm process. This process difference likely contributes to the Core Ultra 5's efficiency in many workloads.

Core configuration is a major differentiator. The Core Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads, whereas the Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core 7 240H's higher thread count (16 vs 14) suggests it uses hyperthreading, while the Core Ultra 5 225H does not, despite having more physical cores. Clock speeds also differ: the Core Ultra 5 225H has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the Core 7 240H runs at 2.50 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost. Higher clocks may explain the Core 7 240H's integer math win.

Cache hierarchies are notably different. The Core Ultra 5 225H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 240H has smaller per-core caches (80 KB L1, 2 MB L2) but a larger 24 MB shared L3. Memory support also differs: the Core Ultra 5 225H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 225H lists a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 7 240H does not have a listed bandwidth figure.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core Ultra 5 225H uses Arc Graphics 130T, while the Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics 64EU. Both processors share the same PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 8 lanes CPU only) and neither supports ECC memory. The Core 7 240H has a launch MSRP of $502, while the Core Ultra 5 225H does not list a launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear pattern: the Core Ultra 5 225H dominates in most tests, but the Core 7 240H has specific strengths. Starting with Cinebench, the Core Ultra 5 225H wins R15 multi-core (2397.5 vs 2360, +1.6%) and R20 multi-core (10041 vs 8562, +17.3%). However, in R23 multi-core, the Core 7 240H reverses the trend with a 7.2% win (15764 vs 14629.5). This inconsistency across multi-core Cinebench versions is noteworthy, suggesting the workloads scale differently across the two architectures.

Single-core Cinebench results are unambiguous. The Core Ultra 5 225H wins R15 single-core by 15.9% (288.5 vs 249), R20 single-core by 17.3% (1417 vs 1208), and R23 single-core by 14.5% (1969 vs 1719). These consistent margins indicate a significant per-core performance advantage for the Arrow Lake chip, likely stemming from its 3 nm process and newer architecture.

PassMark tests show a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra 5 225H winning 12 of 14 PassMark subtests. The largest wins come in specialized workloads: find prime numbers (220 vs 102, +115.7%), floating point math (86540 vs 58905, +46.9%), data encryption (21428 vs 15155, +41.4%), and extended instructions (21915 vs 16897, +29.7%). The Core Ultra 5 225H also wins multithread (28119 vs 23975, +17.3%), random string sorting (33654 vs 28866, +16.6%), and single-thread (4258 vs 3782, +12.6%).

The Core 7 240H's only PassMark win is integer math, where it scores 80396 versus 68520, a 14.8% advantage. This is a substantial margin and suggests the Raptor Lake architecture handles integer-heavy calculations more efficiently, possibly due to its higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 7 240H also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core, as previously noted, giving it two total wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons.

Other PassMark results favor the Core Ultra 5 225H more modestly: data compression (283451 vs 271774, +4.3%) and physics (1877 vs 1723, +8.9%). The overall picture is one of broad superiority for the Core Ultra 5 225H, with the Core 7 240H carving out a niche in integer math and one multi-core Cinebench test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Core Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clock speeds are 1.70 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 225H and 2.50 GHz for the Core 7 240H. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz and 5.20 GHz, respectively. Thermal design power (TDP) is 28 watts for the Core Ultra 5 225H and 45 watts for the Core 7 240H.

Process node and foundry differ significantly: the Core Ultra 5 225H uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the Core 7 240H uses a 10 nm process from Intel. Cache configurations are different at every level. The Core Ultra 5 225H has 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, versus 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 for the Core 7 240H. L3 cache is 18 MB shared for the Core Ultra 5 225H and 24 MB shared for the Core 7 240H.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Core Ultra 5 225H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 but has no listed bandwidth figure. The integrated graphics are Arc Graphics 130T for the Core Ultra 5 225H and Iris Xe Graphics 64EU for the Core 7 240H.

The socket types are different as well: the Core Ultra 5 225H uses Intel BGA 2049, while the Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744. Both have unlocked multipliers set to false, share the same PCIe configuration, and lack ECC support. The release dates differ, with the Core 7 240H released on 2024-12-17 and the Core Ultra 5 225H on 2025-01-12. The Core 7 240H has a launch MSRP of $502, while the Core Ultra 5 225H has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the Core Ultra 5 225H as the better overall performer, winning 15 of 17 tests. Its average benchmark score of 31508 is marginally higher than the Core 7 240H's 31483, and both sit at the 82nd percentile. The Core Ultra 5 225H offers substantial advantages in single-core performance across all Cinebench and PassMark tests, with margins ranging from 12.6% to 17.3%. It also dominates in specialized workloads like encryption, floating point math, and prime number finding, where its leads are 41.4%, 46.9%, and 115.7% respectively.

However, the Core 7 240H is not without merit. Its 14.8% win in integer math (80396 vs 68520) shows that certain workloads favor its Raptor Lake design, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core victory (15764 vs 14629.5, +7.2%) demonstrates that it can outperform in some multi-threaded scenarios. The Core 7 240H also offers higher base and boost clocks (2.50/5.20 GHz vs 1.70/4.90 GHz), which may benefit users who prefer higher clock speeds.

For users seeking a well-rounded mobile processor with strong single-core and specialized workload performance, the Core Ultra 5 225H is the clear choice based on the data. For users whose applications rely heavily on integer math or specific multi-core Cinebench workloads, the Core 7 240H holds a measurable advantage. The Core 7 240H also carries a launch MSRP of $502, a figure not available for the Core Ultra 5 225H.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 225H wins in the following categories based on benchmark results:

• Single-core performance across all tested workloads (Cinebench R15, R20, R23; PassMark single-thread)
• Multi-core Cinebench R15 and R20 (by 1.6% and 17.3% respectively)
• Data compression (283451 vs 271774, +4.3%)
• Data encryption (21428 vs 15155, +41.4%)
• Extended instructions (21915 vs 16897, +29.7%)
• Find prime numbers (220 vs 102, +115.7%)
• Floating point math (86540 vs 58905, +46.9%)
• PassMark multithread (28119 vs 23975, +17.3%)
• Physics (1877 vs 1723, +8.9%)
• Random string sorting (33654 vs 28866, +16.6%)

The Core 7 240H wins in the following categories:

• Cinebench R23 multi-core (15764 vs 14629.5, +7.2%)
• Integer math (80396 vs 68520, +14.8%)

The Core Ultra 5 225H is the more versatile processor for general productivity, scientific computing, and single-threaded applications. The Core 7 240H is preferable for integer-heavy workloads and at least one version of multi-core Cinebench rendering. Given that the Core Ultra 5 225H also operates at a lower TDP (28 watts vs 45 watts), the data suggests it delivers superior performance per watt across most tasks, though efficiency metrics beyond TDP are not provided.