Intel Core Ultra 5 225F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245T Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T and Intel Core Ultra 5 225F are both Arrow Lake desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1851 platform, built on the same 3 nm TSMC process with identical transistor counts and die sizes. They share the same 65 W TDP, dual-channel DDR5 memory support, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, yet the recorded benchmark data shows they are far from interchangeable. The 245T packs 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 225F uses 10 cores and 10 threads, and that core count difference drives most of the performance divergence, though not always in the expected direction.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results across 17 tests show the 225F winning 11 of them, but the 245T takes the most decisive victories. The largest margin belongs to the 245T in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3699 against the 225F's 1893, a 95.4% advantage. That is a massive gap, and it is mirrored in Cinebench R23 multi-core: the 245T scores 26208 versus 16467, a 59.2% lead. The 245T also dominates in Passmark integer math (88676 vs 66417, a 33.5% edge) and floating-point math (108499 vs 92554, a 17.2% lead). In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 245T is 29.6% ahead (372 vs 287), and it wins Passmark data encryption by 4.5% (23656 vs 22648).

The 225F, however, wins the remaining tests, often by smaller margins. Its biggest win is in Passmark extended instructions, where it scores 28027 against the 245T's 22071, a 21.3% advantage. It also leads in Passmark data compression (310843 vs 283812, an 8.7% edge), find prime numbers (352 vs 324, an 8% lead), random string sorting (37325 vs 34931, a 6.4% edge), and physics (2430 vs 2278, a 6.3% lead). In the Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests, the 225F is only slightly ahead: 2660 vs 2641 (0.7%) and 11059 vs 11007 (0.5%) respectively. The same 0.5% margin appears in Cinebench R20 single-core (1561 vs 1553). Passmark multithread and single-thread scores also favor the 225F by less than 1% (31004 vs 30833 and 4397 vs 4367).

The pattern is clear: the 245T wins big in Cinebench R23 and math-heavy Passmark tests, while the 225F wins many smaller-margin tests, particularly those involving compression, extended instructions, and physics. The 225F's overall average benchmark score is 37313, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the 245T averages 38194 and sits in the 86th percentile. The 245T's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 250 (38221, a 0.1% difference), while the 225F's closest competitor is the Intel Core i9-13900HK (37425, a 0.3% difference).

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, and use the same 3 nm process from TSMC. They share the same 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core, and the L2 cache is also the same at 3 MB per core. The key architectural difference lies in the L3 cache: the 245T has 24 MB shared, while the 225F has 20 MB. This 4 MB difference, combined with the core count, explains much of the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads.

The 245T also includes integrated graphics, an Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the 225F has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). This is a significant feature difference for systems that rely on the CPU's display output. Additionally, the 245T supports ECC memory, while the 225F does not. Both processors have the same memory bus (dual-channel) and memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s), and both support DDR5. The PCIe configuration is identical: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Clock speeds differ notably. The 245T has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the 225F has a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz but a lower boost of 4.90 GHz. This means the 225F starts at a higher frequency but cannot reach the same peak. The 245T's higher boost clock likely contributes to its strong single-core performance in Cinebench R23, while the 225F's higher base clock may help in workloads that sustain lower frequencies.

Where Each One Wins

The 245T is the clear winner for Cinebench R23 workloads, both single-core and multi-core, with margins of 95.4% and 59.2% respectively. It also excels in integer and floating-point math, leading by 33.5% and 17.2%. These results suggest the 245T is better suited for rendering, scientific computing, and any task that heavily uses arithmetic operations. Its 14 cores and 24 MB L3 cache give it a substantial advantage in multi-threaded rendering, as evidenced by the R23 multi-core score. The 245T also wins in data encryption, a niche but important workload.

The 225F, on the other hand, wins in Passmark extended instructions, data compression, find prime numbers, random string sorting, and physics. These are often memory-latency-sensitive or instruction-heavy tasks. The 225F also edges out the 245T in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, though by less than 1%, and in Passmark multithread and single-thread by similarly tiny margins. The 225F's higher base clock (3.30 GHz vs 2.20 GHz) may help in workloads that do not scale with core count but benefit from sustained frequency. Its 10 cores are still sufficient for many productivity tasks, and its lower L3 cache (20 MB) does not appear to hinder these specific benchmarks.

For users who prioritize Cinebench-style rendering and math-heavy computation, the 245T is the obvious choice. For those who need strong performance in compression, extended instruction sets, or physics simulations, the 225F holds a consistent, if smaller, advantage. The 225F also wins in Passmark single-thread (4397 vs 4367), a narrow but real lead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The 245T has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. The base clock is 2.20 GHz on the 245T versus 3.30 GHz on the 225F, and the boost clock is 5.10 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. The L3 cache is 24 MB on the 245T and 20 MB on the 225F. ECC memory support is present on the 245T but absent on the 225F. The 245T includes integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG 64EU), while the 225F has none. The launch MSRP is $270 for the 245T and $231 for the 225F. The part numbers are SRVFF for the 245T and SRQD2SRVF9 for the 225F. All other specifications, including TDP (65 W), socket, architecture, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, L1 and L2 cache per core, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, PCIe lanes, market segment, production status, and release date, are identical.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speed?

A: The 245T boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the 225F boosts to 4.90 GHz. The 225F has a higher base clock (3.30 GHz) compared to the 245T (2.20 GHz).

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the 245T supports ECC memory, but the 225F does not.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The 245T includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 225F has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do they compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The 245T scores 26208, which is 59.2% higher than the 225F's 16467.

Q: Which processor wins in Passmark single-thread performance?

A: The 225F scores 4397, slightly ahead of the 245T's 4367, a 0.7% difference.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T is the stronger choice for multi-threaded rendering and math-intensive workloads, as shown by its dominant Cinebench R23 scores and large leads in integer and floating-point math. Its 14 cores, 24 MB L3 cache, and higher boost clock deliver a 59.2% advantage in R23 multi-core and a 95.4% advantage in R23 single-core. It also offers ECC memory support and integrated graphics, making it a more feature-complete package for systems that need those capabilities.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F, with its 10 cores and higher base clock, wins the majority of the head-to-head tests, but by much smaller margins. It leads in Passmark extended instructions, data compression, physics, and several other workloads, and it edges out the 245T in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core by less than 1%. Its Passmark single-thread score is also slightly higher. For users who prioritize these specific tasks, the 225F is the better fit, and its lower launch MSRP of $231 versus $270 may be a consideration, though the database does not assess value.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the workload. If the primary use is rendering, scientific computation, or any task that scales with core count and benefits from a large L3 cache, the 245T is the clear winner. If the workload involves compression, extended instruction sets, or physics simulations, the 225F offers a consistent, if modest, performance edge. The 245T also stands out for its integrated graphics and ECC support, which are absent on the 225F. The recorded benchmarks show that the 245T is the more powerful processor in the most demanding multi-threaded scenarios, while the 225F is a capable alternative for a different set of tasks.