Intel Core Ultra 5 225T vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 225T scores 21,971 against 10,178, a 115.9% advantage. That is more than double the output, a gap that reflects the fundamental difference in core configuration and power envelope between the two parts.

Multi-core rendering workloads consistently favor the 225T. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it posts 2,214 versus 1,583, a 39.9% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 9,227 against 7,069, a 30.5% delta. The single-core results tell a similar story, although with smaller margins. Cinebench R23 single-core gives the 225T 3,101 versus 1,950, a 59% advantage. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1,302 versus 997, a 30.6% lead. Even in the closest comparison, PassMark single-thread, the 225T wins by 1.7%, scoring 4,348 against 4,274.

The PassMark suite reinforces the pattern across varied workloads. Data compression scores 233,998 for the 225T versus 186,521, a 25.5% delta. Data encryption shows 18,289 versus 14,141, a 29.3% lead. Extended instructions deliver 20,083 versus 15,613, a 28.6% gap. Prime number finding, a workload sensitive to integer throughput and memory latency, gives the 225T 284 versus 195, a 45.6% margin. Floating point math scores 82,751 versus 59,536, a 39% delta. Integer math shows 59,543 versus 44,019, a 35.3% lead. The multi-thread PassMark result is 25,358 versus 19,810, a 28% gap. Physics simulation scores 2,053 versus 1,637, a 25.4% delta. Random string sorting shows 28,774 versus 22,622, a 27.2% advantage.

The average benchmark score places the 225T at 30,468, which ranks in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The 288V averages 23,219, ranking in the 76th percentile. The database also lists nearest rivals for context. The 225T sits within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS and AMD Ryzen 7 7736U, and within 0.2% of the Intel Core i9-11980HK. It trails the Intel Core i5-13600H by 0.3%. The 288V sits within 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 4124P, within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V, and trails the Intel Core i9-11900F and AMD Ryzen 7 5800H by 0.2% each.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T wins every multi-core test. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 21,971 versus 10,178, a 115.9% lead. The multi-thread PassMark result is 25,358 versus 19,810, a 28% gap.

Q: Is the single-core performance close between the two?

A: The 225T still wins, but the margin narrows. PassMark single-thread shows 4,348 versus 4,274, only a 1.7% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core is a larger gap at 59%, with 3,101 versus 1,950.

Q: How do their average scores compare?

A: The 225T averages 30,468 across all benchmarks, while the 288V averages 23,219. The 225T ranks in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, the 288V in the 76th.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The 225T has a 65W TDP, while the 288V has a 30W TDP. The 288V is designed for a lower power envelope, yet it still trails in every recorded benchmark.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The 225T has 10 cores and 10 threads. The 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Do they use the same process node?

A: Both use a 3 nm process from TSMC. The architectures differ: the 225T is Arrow Lake-S, the 288V is Lunar Lake.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from the same Core Ultra Series 2 family, but they target different platforms. The 225T uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant, and fits the Intel Socket 1851. The 288V uses Lunar Lake, a mobile-oriented design, and uses Intel BGA 2833.

Both are built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The 225T has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The 288V does not have transistor or die size data recorded in the database. Cache layouts differ. Both have 192 KB of L1 per core. The 225T has 3 MB of L2 per core and 20 MB of shared L3. The 288V has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3.

Memory support diverges. The 225T uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 288V uses LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The 288V actually has higher memory bandwidth despite the lower core count. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ substantially. The 225T provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The 288V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ. The 225T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units. The 288V uses the Arc 140V. The market segments reflect the intended use: the 225T is a desktop part, the 288V is a mobile part.

Specification Differences

The 225T and 288V differ in several key specifications. The 225T has 10 cores and 10 threads; the 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the 225T and 3.30 GHz for the 288V. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz for the 225T and 5.10 GHz for the 288V. The 288V has a higher clock on paper, but the benchmark results do not translate that into a win.

TDP is a major differentiator. The 225T runs at 65W, the 288V at 30W. The 288V is the more power-efficient part by specification, yet it cannot match the 225T in any recorded workload. The 225T uses Intel Socket 1851, the 288V uses Intel BGA 2833. The 225T is Arrow Lake-S, the 288V is Lunar Lake. The 225T has 20 MB of L3, the 288V has 12 MB. L2 per core is 3 MB on the 225T and 2.5 MB on the 288V. Memory bandwidth favors the 288V at 136.5 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes favor the 225T at 20 lanes versus 4 lanes. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V in every single benchmark in the database. The 288V has a higher boost clock, higher memory bandwidth, and a much lower TDP, but none of those translate into a benchmark win. The 225T leads by double digits in most tests and by over 100% in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

The 288V is a mobile part with a 30W TDP, built for a different use case. Its 76th percentile ranking is respectable, but it sits below the 82nd percentile of the 225T. The 225T also holds its own against its nearest rivals, landing within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS, AMD Ryzen 7 7736U, and Intel Core i9-11980HK. The 288V sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V and within 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 4124P.

For pure compute performance, the 225T is the stronger choice. The 288V has platform advantages in power draw and memory bandwidth, but the database shows no workload where it comes out ahead.

Where Each One Wins

The 225T wins everywhere in the recorded benchmarks. Its largest margins are in multi-core rendering, with a 115.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 39.9% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core. It also dominates in prime number finding at 45.6%, floating point math at 39%, and integer math at 35.3%. These results point to a processor that handles sustained compute workloads, rendering, and math-heavy tasks with a clear advantage.

The 288V has no benchmark wins, but the data does reveal areas where the gap narrows. PassMark single-thread is the closest at 1.7%, meaning the 288V is nearly competitive in lightly threaded, short-burst tasks. Its higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz and higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s suggest it is tuned for latency-sensitive, single-threaded work, even if the recorded scores still favor the 225T.

The 288V also carries a 30W TDP, less than half the 65W of the 225T. For a mobile platform, that power efficiency is the practical advantage. The 225T, with its 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and desktop socket, is built for expandability and sustained throughput. The choice comes down to platform: the 225T for desktop compute, the 288V for mobile efficiency, with the caveat that every measured performance metric favors the 225T.