Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a full benchmark suite for the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F, while the Intel Core 7 251E has no benchmark entries in the database. This creates an asymmetric comparison. The Core Ultra 5 225F delivers an average benchmark score of 37,313, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-13900HK, scores 37,425, which puts the Core Ultra 5 225F just 0.3% behind that mobile flagship. Against the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H, the Core Ultra 5 225F leads by 0.4%, and it sits 0.5% ahead of both the Intel Core i7-13700 and the AMD Ryzen 7 160.

For the Core 7 251E, the database records an average benchmark score of 0 and a 50th percentile ranking, with no measured workloads to compare. Every head-to-head win in the recorded data therefore belongs to the Core Ultra 5 225F by default, not because of direct measurements, but because the Core 7 251E lacks any benchmark results. The practical interpretation is that the Core Ultra 5 225F is the only one of the two with validated performance data in the database.

Looking at the Core Ultra 5 225F's individual results, the multi-core Cinebench scores tell a clear story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it records 16,467 points. The Cinebench R20 multi-core run produces 11,059 points, and Cinebench R15 multi-core lands at 2,660 points. Single-core results are equally consistent: Cinebench R23 single-core scores 1,893, Cinebench R20 single-core scores 1,561, and Cinebench R15 single-core scores 287. The PassMark suite reinforces the multi-core capability with a multithread score of 31,004, while the single-thread PassMark score is 4,397.

The Core Ultra 5 225F shows particular strength in data compression, recording 310,843 in the PassMark data compression test. Floating-point math reaches 92,554, integer math hits 66,417, and random string sorting finishes at 37,325. Extended instructions produce 28,027, data encryption scores 22,648, and the physics test records 2,430. The find prime numbers test is the outlier at 352, which is expected for a workload with less parallelism headroom.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 225F wins in every measured category because it is the only chip with recorded scores. Its architecture uses 10 cores and 10 threads, which matches its thread count exactly, indicating no hyper-threading. The Core 7 251E, by contrast, lists 24 cores and 32 threads, suggesting it has 8 hyper-threaded cores on top of its physical core count, but no benchmark data exists to confirm how that configuration performs.

The Core Ultra 5 225F's wins are strongest in throughput-heavy workloads. The PassMark multithread score of 31,004, combined with the Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 16,467, indicates that the chip handles parallel rendering and encoding tasks effectively. Its single-thread PassMark score of 4,397 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,893 show that lightly threaded workloads also perform well. The 85th percentile ranking confirms that the Core Ultra 5 225F sits above the vast majority of CPUs in the database.

The Core 7 251E cannot be assigned wins in any category because the database contains no measurements for it. The 50th percentile ranking is a neutral placeholder, not a performance result. Without benchmark scores, the data cannot support claims of superiority in any workload, despite the Core 7 251E's higher core count and higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz compared to 4.90 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 225F.

In terms of memory bandwidth, the Core Ultra 5 225F records 102.4 GB/s, which is higher than the Core 7 251E's 89.6 GB/s. This gives the Core Ultra 5 225F an advantage in memory-sensitive workloads, even though the Core 7 251E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 while the Core Ultra 5 225F supports only DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 225F also provides more PCIe lanes, with Gen 5 and 20 lanes CPU-only, compared to the Core 7 251E's Gen 5 and 16 lanes.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F, but only because it has measured results. The Core Ultra 5 225F's 85th percentile standing, its average benchmark score of 37,313, and its competitive position within 0.3% of the Intel Core i9-13900HK all indicate a well-rounded desktop processor. The Core 7 251E, with no benchmark entries and a 50th percentile placeholder, cannot be evaluated on performance from the database.

For users who prioritize validated multi-threaded performance, the Core Ultra 5 225F is the only option with evidence. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16,467 and PassMark multithread score of 31,004 demonstrate strong parallel capability. For users who need ECC memory support, the Core 7 251E is the only one of the two that offers it, but this is a feature difference, not a performance result.

The Core 7 251E's larger core count of 24 cores and 32 threads, along with its 36 MB of shared L3 cache, suggests theoretical multi-threaded potential, but the database contains no confirmation. The Core Ultra 5 225F's 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 10 cores are fully documented through benchmarks. The verdict from the recorded data is that the Core Ultra 5 225F is the verified performer, while the Core 7 251E remains unmeasured and therefore unproven in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has an average benchmark score of 37,313. The Intel Core 7 251E has an average benchmark score of 0, with no recorded benchmark entries.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F compare to the Intel Core i9-13900HK?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225F scores 37,313, while the Core i9-13900HK scores 37,425. The Core Ultra 5 225F trails by 0.3%.

Q: What is the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F's Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 16,467 points. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 1,893 points.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251E support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 7 251E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F does not support ECC memory.

Q: What process node is used for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC. The Intel Core 7 251E uses a 10 nm process node from Intel.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F records 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel Core 7 251E records 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F is built on the Arrow Lake architecture, with the codename Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. The Intel Core 7 251E is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture and belongs to the Core 7 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The process nodes differ substantially: the Core Ultra 5 225F uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the Core 7 251E uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The Core Ultra 5 225F has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 7 251E does not have a transistor count listed but has a die size of 257 mm².

Cache structures differ as well. The Core Ultra 5 225F has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 251E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 225F's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches align with its newer 3 nm architecture, while the Core 7 251E's larger L3 cache reflects its higher core count.

The Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, indicating that 8 of its cores support hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics, while the Core 7 251E includes UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra 5 225F supports only DDR5 memory, while the Core 7 251E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. ECC memory is supported on the Core 7 251E but not on the Core Ultra 5 225F. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core Ultra 5 225F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes CPU-only, while the Core 7 251E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes CPU-only.

Specification Differences

The socket types are different. The Core Ultra 5 225F uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Core 7 251E uses Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 5 225F has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 7 251E has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Both processors have a TDP of 65 watts.

The Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. The Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Core Ultra 5 225F uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC, while the Core 7 251E uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Core Ultra 5 225F has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 7 251E has no listed transistor count and a 257 mm² die.

Memory support differs: the Core Ultra 5 225F supports DDR5 only and has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 7 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5 and has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Both are dual-channel. ECC memory is supported on the Core 7 251E but not on the Core Ultra 5 225F. Integrated graphics are present on the Core 7 251E as UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics. PCIe configuration shows the Core Ultra 5 225F with Gen 5 and 20 lanes CPU-only, while the Core 7 251E has Gen 5 and 16 lanes CPU-only. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core Ultra 5 225F has a launch MSRP of $231, while the Core 7 251E has a launch MSRP of $384. The Core Ultra 5 225F was released on 2025-01-06, and the Core 7 251E was released on 2025-01-12. Both are active in production and target the desktop market segment.