Intel Core i5-13600K vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i5-13600K has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads.

Q: How do they compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 wins in Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 3655 versus 2000.5 for the i5-13600K, a 82.7% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, it also leads 4412 to 4124, a 7% difference.

Q: Which chip is better for multi-core workloads?

A: The i5-13600K takes the majority of multi-core tests. It wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by 52.8% (13373 vs 6317), PassMark multi-thread by 19.2% (37680 vs 30459), and PassMark integer math by 46.6% (122481 vs 65345).

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 225 win any multi-core tests?

A: Yes. It wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 25891 versus 24221, a 6.9% margin. It also edges out the i5-13600K in PassMark floating-point math by 1.7% (92038 vs 90538).

Q: Which CPU has the higher clock speeds?

A: The i5-13600K has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 225 has a 3.30 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost.

Q: What about memory support and ECC?

A: The i5-13600K supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with ECC memory enabled. The Core Ultra 5 225 supports only DDR5 and does not support ECC.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design generations. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 uses the Arrow Lake-S architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The Intel Core i5-13600K is built on the Raptor Lake-S architecture, using Intel's 10 nm process with a 257 mm² die size. This process advantage helps explain the Core Ultra's strong single-core efficiency.

Core configuration diverges significantly. The Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The i5-13600K has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid layout with performance and efficiency cores. Cache hierarchies also differ: the Core Ultra has 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, while the i5-13600K has 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core. The i5-13600K counters with a larger 24 MB shared L3 cache versus 20 MB on the Core Ultra.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core Ultra 5 225 features Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units, while the i5-13600K has UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra is not multiplier-unlocked, whereas the i5-13600K supports unlocked multipliers for overclocking. The socket platforms are incompatible: the Core Ultra uses Intel Socket 1851, the i5-13600K uses Intel Socket 1700. Power targets also diverge, with the Core Ultra rated at 65W TDP versus 125W for the i5-13600K. The i5-13600K offers dual memory support for DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra is DDR5-only.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a split picture. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 dominates in single-core workloads, with its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3655 being 82.7% higher than the i5-13600K's 2000.5. It also leads in PassMark single-thread by 7% and wins the prime number test by a massive 131% margin. This makes it the clear choice for lightly threaded applications, responsiveness, and tasks that depend heavily on per-core performance.

The Intel Core i5-13600K is the multi-core workhorse. Its 20 threads over 14 cores give it substantial leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core (3642 vs 2609, 28.4% ahead), Cinebench R20 multi-core (13373 vs 6317, 52.8% ahead), and PassMark integer math (122481 vs 65345, 46.6% ahead). For heavily threaded workloads like video encoding, compilation, or data compression, the i5-13600K is the stronger option.

The overall win count is nearly even: the i5-13600K wins 9 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 5 225 wins 8. The percentile rankings are close too, with the i5-13600K at the 86th percentile versus 85th for the Core Ultra. The Core Ultra 5 225 is the pick for users prioritizing single-core speed and power efficiency, while the i5-13600K suits users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 225 | Intel Core i5-13600K |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 10 | 14 |

| Threads | 10 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 65W | 125W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB shared | 24 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 only | DDR4, DDR5 |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 16EU | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2025-01-06 | 2022-09-26 |

| Launch MSRP | $246 | $319 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single-core story is dominated by the Core Ultra 5 225. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 368 versus 287.5 for the i5-13600K, a 28% advantage. The gap widens dramatically in Cinebench R23 single-core: 3655 versus 2000.5, an 82.7% lead. PassMark single-thread confirms the trend at 4412 versus 4124, a 7% edge. The prime number test shows an extreme difference, with the Core Ultra scoring 358 against 155, a 131% win.

The multi-core results favor the i5-13600K in most cases. Cinebench R15 multi-core sees the i5-13600K at 3642 versus 2609, a 28.4% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core is even more lopsided: 13373 versus 6317, a 52.8% advantage. PassMark multi-thread gives the i5-13600K a 19.2% win (37680 vs 30459). PassMark integer math shows a 46.6% lead for the i5-13600K (122481 vs 65345). Data compression is also a big win, with 476394 versus 302811, a 36.4% difference. Random string sorting goes to the i5-13600K by 28.4% (51073 vs 36590).

There are notable exceptions in multi-core. The Core Ultra 5 225 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 25891 versus 24221, a 6.9% margin. It also takes PassMark floating-point math at 92038 versus 90538, a 1.7% edge, and PassMark physics at 2342 versus 2258, a 3.7% win. Data encryption favors the i5-13600K by 17.7% (27075 vs 22285), and extended instructions go to the i5-13600K by 5.7% (28805 vs 27162).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 wins in scenarios that reward high single-thread throughput and specific computational patterns. Its dominance in Cinebench R23 single-core by 82.7% suggests excellent performance in legacy or lightly threaded applications, web browsing, office productivity, and any software that relies on one or two fast cores. The 131% lead in prime number finding indicates strength in integer-heavy sequential algorithms. The physics test win by 3.7% and floating-point math win by 1.7% point to advantages in scientific computing and simulation tasks that use floating-point operations. The 6.9% Cinebench R23 multi-core win shows it can also handle moderately threaded workloads competently, despite fewer threads.

The Intel Core i5-13600K wins in heavily parallel workloads. The 52.8% lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 28.4% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core indicate strong scaling across its 20 threads. The 46.6% advantage in integer math makes it suitable for encryption, compression, and general data processing. The 36.4% win in data compression and 28.4% win in random string sorting confirm its superiority in data manipulation tasks. The 17.7% lead in data encryption and 19.2% lead in PassMark multi-thread further cement its position for content creation, video editing, 3D rendering, and software compilation where all cores are utilized.

For users who value power efficiency, the Core Ultra 5 225's 65W TDP versus 125W for the i5-13600K is a significant consideration, though the i5-13600K's unlocked multiplier offers overclocking headroom that the Core Ultra lacks. The i5-13600K also supports DDR4 memory, which can be an advantage for system builders with existing DDR4 kits, plus ECC support for workstation reliability. The Core Ultra 5 225's Arrow Lake architecture with TSMC 3 nm process delivers its performance with a much smaller power envelope, making it the better fit for compact builds or systems where thermal management is a priority.