Intel Core Ultra 5 228V vs Intel Core Ultra 7 256V Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and Intel Core Ultra 7 256V are two 8-core Lunar Lake mobile processors aimed at thin-and-light laptops. Both share the same TSMC 3 nm process, the same 17 W TDP, and the same Intel BGA 2833 socket, but the data shows the Core Ultra 7 256V is consistently faster across every single benchmark recorded. The Ultra 5 228V is no slouch, but the Ultra 7 256V commands a clear performance premium in every workload tested.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V wins all multi-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 10399 against the Ultra 5 228V’s 9932, a 4.5% lead. The gap widens in PassMark multi-thread, where the Ultra 7 256V scores 19530 versus 18227, a 6.7% advantage.

Q: Is the single-core performance difference significant?

A: Yes, it is consistent. The Ultra 7 256V leads by 6.5% in Cinebench R15 single-core (285.5 vs 267) and by 6.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core (1877.5 vs 1758). In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 7 256V scores 4029 against 3836, a 4.8% edge.

Q: Do these CPUs have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V have 8 cores and 8 threads. They do not support simultaneous multithreading, so thread count equals core count.

Q: Is the integrated graphics different between the two?

A: The data indicates they use different integrated graphics solutions. The Ultra 5 228V features Arc 130V, while the Ultra 7 256V upgrades to Arc 140V.

Q: How do these chips compare to their closest rivals in the database?

A: The Ultra 5 228V sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 2600, with a delta of -0.2%, and is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900H. The Ultra 7 256V is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U at -0.1% and is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600G.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Lunar Lake architecture and are manufactured by TSMC on a 3 nm process node. They share the same core configuration: 8 cores and 8 threads, with no hyper-threading. The L1 and L2 cache sizes are identical: 192 KB per core for L1 and 2.5 MB per core for L2. The primary architectural difference lies in the L3 cache. The Ultra 7 256V has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, which is 4 MB more than the 8 MB found on the Ultra 5 228V. This additional cache likely contributes to the performance gap seen in the benchmark results.

The two chips also differ in clock speeds. The Ultra 5 228V has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Ultra 7 256V runs slightly higher, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. This 0.10 GHz base clock and 0.30 GHz boost clock advantage explains some of the single-threaded performance lead. Both processors have a 17 W TDP, use a dual-channel memory bus, and offer PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Neither supports ECC memory, and both are locked (multiplier unlocked: false). They are both mobile segment parts, released on the same date, and are currently listed as Active in production.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V is the superior processor. It wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all 17 wins. The Ultra 5 228V does not win a single test. If you are choosing between these two specific chips, the Ultra 7 256V is the only logical pick for any performance-oriented task, from single-threaded responsiveness to multi-threaded rendering.

The Ultra 5 228V exists as a lower-tier option, but the benchmark results provide no reason to prefer it over the Ultra 7 256V, assuming the system cost is not a deciding factor (which is not addressed in this data). The Ultra 7 256V also offers a better integrated graphics solution (Arc 140V vs Arc 130V) and a larger L3 cache. For a mobile user, the Ultra 7 256V provides a meaningful performance uplift that justifies its position in the lineup. The Ultra 5 228V is not a bad chip—it performs near the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel Core i9-11900H—but it is clearly outclassed by its sibling.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key differences between the two processors, based solely on the provided data.

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 228V | Intel Core Ultra 7 256V |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc 130V | Arc 140V |

| Generation | Ultra 5 (Lunar Lake) | Ultra 7 (Lunar Lake) |

| Part Number | SRPMVSRPMU | SRPMPSRPMZ |

| Cinebench R15 Multi | 1502.5 | 1583.5 |

| Cinebench R20 Multi | 6491 | 6958 |

| Cinebench R23 Multi | 9932 | 10399 |

| PassMark Multi-thread | 18227 | 19530 |

| PassMark Single-thread | 3836 | 4029 |

All other specifications are identical: 8 cores/8 threads, 17 W TDP, Intel BGA 2833 socket, TSMC 3 nm process, 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, dual-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes, and no ECC support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 256V dominates the head-to-head comparison, taking all 17 benchmark wins. The largest single victory comes in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 256V scores 192 against the Ultra 5 228V’s 168, a 12.5% lead. This is a substantial margin for a single-threaded integer workload.

In floating-point math, the Ultra 7 256V scores 58576 versus 53310, a 9% advantage. Integer math shows a similar pattern, with the Ultra 7 256V leading 43358 to 39679, an 8.5% gap. These results suggest the higher boost clock and larger cache help significantly in compute-heavy tasks.

The Cinebench suite shows consistent leads for the Ultra 7 256V. In Cinebench R20, it wins multi-core 6958 to 6491 and single-core 982 to 916, both with a 6.7% delta. Cinebench R23 results are slightly closer in multi-core, with a 4.5% lead (10399 vs 9932), but the single-core test still shows a 6.4% advantage (1877.5 vs 1758).

In data compression, the Ultra 7 256V scores 184985 against 173924, a 6% lead. Data encryption shows a 6.9% edge (13998 vs 13032). The PassMark physics test is the closest race, with the Ultra 7 256V winning 1595 to 1538, a 3.6% margin. Extended instructions also favor the Ultra 7 256V, with a 5.4% lead (15643 vs 14801).

Even in random string sorting, a test that often stresses memory latency, the Ultra 7 256V wins by 5.5% (22481 vs 21254). The smallest win in percentage terms is the physics test at 3.6%, while the largest is find prime numbers at 12.5%. Across all tests, the average performance advantage hovers in the 5-7% range, confirming a broad and consistent performance uplift for the Ultra 7 256V.

Where Each One Wins

There is no benchmark category where the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V comes out ahead. The data shows zero wins for the Ultra 5 228V across all 17 recorded tests. This includes single-threaded tests, multi-threaded tests, integer math, floating-point math, encryption, compression, and physics simulations.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V wins in every category. Its strongest relative performance is in prime number finding, where it is 12.5% faster. It also shows large leads in floating-point math (9%) and integer math (8.5%). For content creation workloads like Cinebench, the Ultra 7 256V is consistently 4.5% to 6.7% faster, making it the clear choice for rendering and video encoding tasks.

For general productivity, the Ultra 7 256V’s lead in single-threaded tests (4.8% to 6.5% depending on the test) means snappier application launches and better performance in lightly-threaded software. In heavily threaded workloads like the PassMark multi-thread test, the 6.7% advantage (19530 vs 18227) solidifies its position as the better multi-tasking chip.

The Ultra 5 228V’s only saving grace is that it performs near the level of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel Core i9-11900H, meaning it is a capable processor in its own right. However, within this comparison, the Core Ultra 7 256V is the definitive winner in every measurable way. A user looking for maximum performance from a Lunar Lake mobile chip should select the Ultra 7 256V without hesitation. The Ultra 5 228V is only relevant if the specific system configuration requires a lower-tier chip, but from a pure benchmark perspective, it offers no advantages.