Intel Core Ultra 5 225 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225F Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 225F and Intel Core Ultra 5 225 are nearly identical on paper, sharing the same Arrow Lake-S architecture, 10 cores, 10 threads, 3.30 GHz base clock, 4.90 GHz boost clock, 65W TDP, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The sole functional distinction is the integrated graphics: the 225F has none, while the 225 packs an Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU iGPU. Yet the benchmark data reveals a deeply split personality, with the 225F winning 11 of 17 head-to-head tests while the 225 takes 6, but the 225’s victories include some of the largest margins, particularly in Cinebench R23. This makes the choice less about specs and more about workload characteristics.

Where Each One Wins

The 225F establishes dominance in the PassMark suite, taking 8 of 11 PassMark tests outright. Its wins are consistent but narrow: data compression (310,843 vs 302,811, +2.7%), data encryption (22,648 vs 22,285, +1.6%), extended instructions (28,027 vs 27,162, +3.2%), floating point math (92,554 vs 92,038, +0.6%), integer math (66,417 vs 65,345, +1.6%), multithread (31,004 vs 30,459, +1.8%), physics (2,430 vs 2,342, +3.8%), and random string sorting (37,325 vs 36,590, +2%). None of these margins exceed 3.8%, so the 225F is the better all-round compute engine for general productivity tasks, but only by a hair.

The 225, conversely, claims the Cinebench R23 crown with a massive multi-core score of 25,891 versus the 225F’s 16,467 — a 36.4% advantage. Its single-core R23 score of 3,655 crushes the 225F’s 1,893 by 48.2%. These are not subtle wins; they represent a fundamentally different performance profile in rendering workloads. The 225 also edges out the 225F in Cinebench R15 single-core (368 vs 287, +22%) and passmark single-thread (4,412 vs 4,397, +0.3%), plus a marginal win in prime number finding (358 vs 352, +1.7%).

The split becomes bizarre when looking at Cinebench R20. The 225F wins multi-core by 75.1% (11,059 vs 6,317) and single-core by 75.2% (1,561 vs 891), yet loses R23 by similar proportions. This suggests the two processors are not just clocked differently under load but may be hitting different thermal or power ceilings depending on the benchmark’s duration and instruction mix. The R20 results align with the PassMark trend favoring the 225F, while R23 flips the script entirely.

The Verdict

Data-driven selection hinges on workload. For users running Cinebench R23 — a proxy for long-form 3D rendering, video encoding, and other sustained multi-threaded creative tasks — the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is the unequivocal choice. Its 25,891 multi-core score places it 36.4% ahead of the 225F, and its 3,655 single-core score is 48.2% higher. This performance gap is too large to ignore for render farms or CPU-bound content creation.

Conversely, the 225F is the pick for general desktop use, office productivity, and mixed workloads that leverage PassMark’s varied instruction set. It wins 11 of 17 benchmarks, including all the PassMark math and encryption tests, and its average benchmark score of 37,313 slightly edges the 225’s 36,938. The 225F also sits at the 85th percentile against all CPUs, identical to the 225, but its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700 (deltaPct 0.5) and AMD Ryzen 7 160 (deltaPct 0.5), indicating it trades blows with higher-tier parts.

The pricing differential is minimal — the 225F has a launch MSRP of $231, the 225 at $246 — but the 225’s extra $15 buys the integrated Arc graphics and the R23 performance advantage. For anyone who already owns a discrete GPU and prioritizes multi-core rendering, the 225F’s lower launch MSRP and PassMark edge make it the logical default. For anyone needing a fallback iGPU or targeting Cinebench R23 scores, the 225 justifies its higher launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking divergence is in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the 225F scores 11,059 against the 225’s 6,317, a 75.1% delta. This is the single largest win for either chip and suggests the 225 may be throttling heavily in this specific benchmark. The R20 single-core test mirrors it: 1,561 vs 891, a 75.2% margin for the 225F. These results are outliers compared to every other test.

Cinebench R23 flips the script. The 225’s multi-core score of 25,891 is 36.4% higher than the 225F’s 16,467. Its single-core lead is even more pronounced at 48.2% (3,655 vs 1,893). This pattern — the 225 losing badly in R20 but winning hugely in R23 — is the kind of inconsistency that points to different boost behavior under sustained vs short bursts. R15 multi-core shows a smaller 225F win (2,660 vs 2,609, +2%), while R15 single-core goes to the 225 by 22% (368 vs 287).

In the PassMark suite, the margins are tight but consistently favor the 225F. Data compression shows the largest absolute gap at 310,843 vs 302,811. The physics test gives the 225F its best percentage win at 3.8% (2,430 vs 2,342). Extended instructions follow at 3.2% (28,027 vs 27,162). The 225’s only PassMark wins are single-thread (4,412 vs 4,397, +0.3%) and find prime numbers (358 vs 352, +1.7%). Floating point math is nearly a tie at 92,554 vs 92,038, a 0.6% margin.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 wins decisively with a score of 25,891 versus the 225F’s 16,467, a 36.4% advantage.

Q: Does the 225F have integrated graphics?

A: No. The 225F has no integrated graphics (N/A), while the 225 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The 225F averages 37,313 across all benchmarks, while the 225 averages 36,938, a difference of 375 points favoring the 225F.

Q: Which CPU wins more head-to-head tests?

A: The 225F wins 11 of 17 benchmarks, while the 225 wins 6, though the 225’s wins include the much larger Cinebench R23 margins.

Q: Are the core counts and clocks identical?

A: Yes. Both have 10 cores, 10 threads, a 3.30 GHz base clock, and a 4.90 GHz boost clock, with the same 65W TDP and 20 MB L3 cache.

Q: How does the 225 compare to the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F?

A: The 225’s average score of 36,938 is essentially tied with the Ryzen 5 5600F’s 36,945, showing a deltaPct of 0.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built on the same Arrow Lake-S architecture, fabricated on a TSMC 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. They share identical cache hierarchies: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. Memory support is likewise matched at DDR5 dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and both run on Intel Socket 1851 with 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The 225F and 225 both have a 65W TDP, are not multiplier-unlocked, and were released on the same date.

The only architectural difference is the integrated graphics. The 225F lists integrated graphics as N/A, making it a true F-series part requiring a discrete GPU. The 225 integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units. This affects not only display output but also any GPU-accelerated workloads that can leverage the iGPU, such as quick video decode or light 3D acceleration, though the 225F’s PassMark physics score of 2,430 vs 2,342 suggests the 225’s iGPU does not materially help CPU-bound physics calculations. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and both use the same part numbers (SRQD2SRVF9 for the 225F, SRQCZSRVF7 for the 225). The production status for both is Active, with the same release date of 2025-01-06. The launch MSRP differs by $15, with the 225F at $231 and the 225 at $246, which correlates directly with the presence of the iGPU in the 225.