Intel Core Ultra 5 225H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225T Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 225H and Intel Core Ultra 5 225T share the same Arrow Lake architecture and TSMC 3 nm process node, but they are built for different sockets and markets. The 225H is a mobile part with 14 cores and a 28 W TDP, while the 225T is a desktop chip with 10 cores and a 65 W TDP. Benchmark results reveal a clear split: the 225H wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the 225T wins 7. The data suggests the 225H is the stronger multi-threaded workhorse, whereas the 225T excels in specific single-thread and integer workloads. This analysis breaks down where each processor dominates.

Where Each One Wins

The 225H claims victory in the majority of benchmark categories, particularly in memory-heavy and encryption tasks. It leads in PassMark data compression (283451 vs 233998, +21.1%), data encryption (21428 vs 18289, +17.2%), and random string sorting (33654 vs 28774, +17%). These wins indicate the 225H handles data manipulation and cryptographic workloads more effectively. The 225H also wins in floating point math (86540 vs 82751, +4.6%) and integer math (68520 vs 59543, +15.1%), showing broad computational strength.

The 225T, despite having fewer cores, takes the single-core crown in several tests. It wins Cinebench R15 single-core (312 vs 288.5, -7.5% for the 225H) and PassMark single-thread (4348 vs 4258, -2.1%). Most notably, the 225T dominates Cinebench R23 single-core (3101 vs 1969, -36.5% for the 225H) and multi-core (21971 vs 14629.5, -33.4% for the 225H). The 225T also wins PassMark find prime numbers (284 vs 220, -22.5%) and physics (2053 vs 1877, -8.6%). These results suggest the 225T has superior per-core performance in certain workloads, despite its lower core count.

The pattern is unusual. The 225H wins most PassMark tests, but the 225T wins the Cinebench R23 tests by large margins. This divergence hints at different optimization points. The 225H appears tuned for sustained throughput across many cores, while the 225T favors single-thread speed and specific integer operations.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC node, but the physical designs differ. The 225H uses the Arrow Lake-H codename and fits the Intel BGA 2049 socket, a mobile platform. The 225T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and fits the Intel Socket 1851, a desktop platform. The 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 225T has 10 cores and 10 threads. Neither supports hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Cache configurations differ. Both have 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is larger on the 225T at 20 MB versus 18 MB on the 225H. The 225T also lists 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size, while the 225H does not report those figures. Memory support is broader on the 225H, which accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the 225T only supports DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

PCIe connectivity differs substantially. The 225H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 225T provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This makes the 225T more suitable for multi-GPU or high-bandwidth desktop expansion. Integrated graphics also differ: the 225H uses Arc Graphics 130T, while the 225T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Base clocks differ in opposite directions. The 225H runs at 1.70 GHz base, while the 225T runs at 2.50 GHz base. Both boost to 4.90 GHz. The 225T has a higher base clock, which likely contributes to its single-core wins. The 225H has a lower base clock but more cores, giving it an advantage in multi-threaded PassMark tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the 225T comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 21971 versus 14629.5 for the 225H, a delta of -33.4% for the 225H. This is a massive gap, indicating the 225T delivers significantly more multi-threaded performance in this specific test. The 225T also wins Cinebench R23 single-core by a wide margin, scoring 3101 versus 1969, a -36.5% delta. These Cinebench R23 results are the defining victories for the 225T.

The 225H counters with its own set of decisive wins. In PassMark data compression, the 225H scores 283451 versus 233998, a +21.1% advantage. In data encryption, the 225H leads 21428 versus 18289, a +17.2% margin. The 225H also wins PassMark multithread (28119 vs 25358, +10.9%) and integer math (68520 vs 59543, +15.1%). These results show the 225H is faster in real-world data processing tasks.

The Cinebench R20 results are split oddly. The 225H wins multi-core (10041 vs 9227, +8.8%) and single-core (1417 vs 1302, +8.8%). But in Cinebench R15, the 225H wins multi-core (2397.5 vs 2214, +8.3%) while losing single-core (288.5 vs 312, -7.5%). The Cinebench R23 results contradict the R15 and R20 patterns, suggesting the 225T has a specific advantage in the newer Cinebench version.

PassMark single-thread shows a narrow 225T win (4348 vs 4258, -2.1%), while PassMark physics goes to the 225T (2053 vs 1877, -8.6%). The 225H wins PassMark extended instructions (21915 vs 20083, +9.1%) and floating point math (86540 vs 82751, +4.6%). The 225H also wins PassMark random string sorting (33654 vs 28774, +17%). Overall, the 225H wins 10 tests, the 225T wins 7.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear use-case split. The 225H is the stronger choice for data-heavy workloads: compression, encryption, sorting, and integer math. Its 14 cores and lower TDP of 28 W make it suitable for mobile systems where sustained multi-threaded throughput matters. The 225H also matches the 225T in average benchmark score territory, with 31508 versus 30468, though the 225H sits at the 82nd percentile, same as the 225T.

The 225T is the pick for single-core performance and certain multi-core tests. Its Cinebench R23 scores are dramatically higher, and its 65 W TDP and desktop socket allow for more robust cooling. The 225T also offers 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 8 on the 225H, making it better for desktop expansion. However, the 225T loses most PassMark tests, indicating its strengths are narrower.

Neither processor is universally superior. The 225H wins more tests overall, but the 225T wins the most important Cinebench R23 tests by huge margins. For users running Cinebench R23 specifically, the 225T is clearly faster. For general computing with compression and encryption, the 225H leads. The choice depends entirely on the workload mix.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

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

Q: What is the biggest benchmark difference between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 225T scores 21971 versus 14629.5 for the 225H, a -33.4% difference for the 225H.

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

A: The 225H wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark tests, while the 225T wins 7.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: No. The 225H uses Intel BGA 2049, and the 225T uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: Which processor has higher base clock speed?

A: The 225T has a base clock of 2.50 GHz, while the 225H has a base clock of 1.70 GHz. Both boost to 4.90 GHz.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The 225H has a TDP of 28 W, and the 225T has a TDP of 65 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 225H | Intel Core Ultra 5 225T |

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

| Cores | 14 | 10 |

| Threads | 14 | 10 |

| Base Clock | 1.70 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2049 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-H | Arrow Lake-S |

| Transistors | Not reported | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not reported | 243 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Graphics 130T | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-12-31 |

| Part Number | SRQAM | unknown |