Intel Core Ultra 5 228V vs Intel Xeon 6325P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between two distinct performance profiles. The Intel Xeon 6325P and Intel Core Ultra 5 228V trade wins across 17 recorded tests, with the Core Ultra 5 228V claiming 11 victories while the Xeon 6325P secures 6. The most dramatic separation occurs in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon 6325P posts 13,717 against the Core Ultra 5 228V's 9,932, a 38.1% advantage. This represents the single largest margin in the entire head-to-head comparison. The Xeon's single-core Cinebench R23 result of 1,936 likewise beats the Core Ultra's 1,758 by 10.1%, showing that the server chip holds a genuine architectural edge in sustained rendering workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 228V, however, dominates the PassMark suite. Its floating point math score of 53,310 surpasses the Xeon's 37,265 by 30.1%. Prime number finding shows an even wider gap: 168 versus 66, a 60.7% difference that strongly favors the mobile processor. Data encryption performance also favors the Core Ultra, with 13,032 against 9,311, a 28.6% margin. Extended instructions follow the same pattern, as the Core Ultra scores 14,801 versus 11,645, a 21.3% lead.

Mixed results appear in the remaining tests. The Xeon 6325P wins integer math decisively at 49,151 versus 39,679, a 23.9% margin. It also edges ahead in data compression (178,020 versus 173,924, a 2.4% difference) and in PassMark single-thread performance (4,213 versus 3,836, a 9.8% lead). The Core Ultra counters in Cinebench R15 and R20. In R15 multi-core, it scores 1,502.5 versus 1,382, an 8% advantage, while in R15 single-core it posts 267 versus 195, a 27% lead. R20 multi-core shows 6,491 versus 5,761 (an 11.2% edge), and R20 single-core likewise shows 916 versus 813, also an 11.2% difference. PassMark multithread favors the Core Ultra at 18,227 versus 16,138, an 11.5% gap, while physics testing shows 1,538 versus 1,020, a 33.7% lead. Random string sorting completes the picture with 21,254 versus 19,113, a 10.1% margin for the Core Ultra.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Core Ultra 5 228V averages 21,440 across all tests, placing it in the 75th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon 6325P averages 20,821, sitting at the 74th percentile. These percentile rankings confirm that both processors occupy comparable overall tiers, despite their divergent strengths. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U at 20,826 (a 0% delta), the Intel Core i5-12490F at 20,802 (a 0.1% delta), and the AMD EPYC 7J13 at 20,845 (a -0.1% delta). The Core Ultra 5 228V, meanwhile, sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 at 21,484 (-0.2%), the Intel Core i9-11900H at 21,367 (0.3%), and the Intel Xeon D-1746TER at 21,635 (-0.9%).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon 6325P achieves 13,717 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 38.1% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V's 9,932.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap in PassMark?

A: The Xeon 6325P records 4,213 in PassMark single-thread, beating the Core Ultra 5 228V's 3,836 by 9.8%.

Q: What is the biggest percentage difference in any benchmark?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 228V scores 168 versus the Xeon's 66, a 60.7% advantage.

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests overall?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon 6325P wins 6.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 228V averages 21,440, while the Xeon 6325P averages 20,821. The Core Ultra sits at the 75th percentile of all CPUs, the Xeon at the 74th.

Q: Does the Xeon win any encryption or compression tests?

A: The Xeon 6325P wins data compression with 178,020 versus 173,924 (a 2.4% margin), but loses data encryption decisively, scoring 9,311 versus the Core Ultra's 13,032 (a 28.6% deficit).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different Intel design families. The Xeon 6325P uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. Its die size measures 163 mm². The Core Ultra 5 228V, by contrast, uses Lunar Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. This process node difference alone explains much of the power and efficiency gap between the two.

Core topology diverges sharply. The Xeon 6325P contains 4 cores with 8 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to double its logical execution width. The Core Ultra 5 228V packs 8 cores in 8 threads, a design that omits Hyper-Threading entirely. Despite having twice the physical core count, the Core Ultra's threads match the Xeon's thread count exactly. Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The Xeon provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra's larger per-core caches align with its mobile efficiency goals, while the Xeon's larger shared L3 supports server-style data locality.

Memory support separates the pair further. The Xeon 6325P supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, features ECC memory capability, and connects via a dual-channel bus. The Core Ultra 5 228V's memory support is listed as motherboard-dependent, with unspecified details, and it lacks ECC functionality. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Xeon exposes Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. Integrated graphics tell a different story. The Xeon has no integrated GPU, which is standard for server/workstation parts. The Core Ultra includes Arc 130V graphics, a notable feature for a mobile processor.

The market positioning reflects these architectural choices. The Xeon 6325P targets server and workstation workloads, with a production status of Active and a release date of 2025-02-23. The Core Ultra 5 228V serves the mobile segment, with a release date of 2024-09-23. Their sockets reinforce this: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra uses Intel BGA 2833, a soldered mobile package. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either.

Specification Differences

Base and boost clock speeds diverge sharply. The Xeon 6325P runs at a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boosts to 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 228V starts at 2.10 GHz and boosts to 4.50 GHz. The Xeon's higher clocks contribute to its strong single-thread results, despite its lower core count. Thermal design power creates an even wider gap. The Xeon 6325P carries a 55 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 228V draws just 17 W. This difference of 38 W indicates a fundamental design intent: the Xeon prioritizes raw performance, the Core Ultra prioritizes power efficiency for mobile use.

Cores and threads differ as noted: 4 cores and 8 threads for the Xeon, 8 cores and 8 threads for the Core Ultra. The Xeon's process node of 10 nm stands against the Core Ultra's 3 nm. L1 and L2 cache capacities differ per core, with the Core Ultra providing 192 KB and 2.5 MB respectively, versus the Xeon's 80 KB and 1.25 MB. L3 cache reverses the trend: the Xeon offers 12 MB shared versus the Core Ultra's 8 MB shared. Memory support differs, with the Xeon supporting DDR4 and DDR5 and ECC, while the Core Ultra's support remains motherboard-dependent without ECC. PCIe lane counts differ: 16 lanes for the Xeon versus 4 for the Core Ultra. Integrated graphics exist only on the Core Ultra, with its Arc 130V GPU. The Xeon has no integrated graphics. Market segments differ, with the Xeon designated as Server/Workstation and the Core Ultra as Mobile. The Xeon carries a launch MSRP of $281, while the Core Ultra has no recorded launch MSRP. Part numbers also differ: SRPLX for the Xeon and SRPMVSRPMU for the Core Ultra.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6325P claims its territory in sustained multi-core rendering and integer-heavy workloads. Its 38.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core makes it the clear choice for CPU-bound rendering tasks, 3D modeling, and video encoding that scales across threads. The 23.9% advantage in PassMark integer math points to strength in database operations, financial modeling, and general server-side computation. Its 10.1% single-core Cinebench R23 lead and 9.8% PassMark single-thread advantage further suggest that workloads favoring high clock response, such as legacy single-threaded applications, will run better on the Xeon. Data compression also favors the Xeon, with a 2.4% edge, making it suitable for archiving and backup scenarios. The Xeon's ECC memory support and DDR4/DDR5 flexibility further cement its role in reliability-critical server environments.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V wins the efficiency and mobile performance battle. Its 17 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, where the Xeon's 55 W envelope would prove impractical. The Core Ultra's 60.7% lead in prime number finding indicates superior performance in cryptographic key generation and mathematical algorithms. The 30.1% floating point advantage suggests strong performance in scientific simulations, signal processing, and graphics-related compute. Data encryption at 28.6% ahead positions it well for secure communication workloads, while extended instructions at 21.3% ahead show better support for modern SIMD and vectorized code. The 33.7% lead in PassMark physics points to better performance in physics simulation engines, common in gaming and engineering visualization. PassMark multithread at 11.5% ahead confirms that the Core Ultra handles mixed parallel workloads effectively despite its lower thread count. Random string sorting at 10.1% ahead indicates faster data sorting and text processing. The Core Ultra's 8 cores with 8 threads, larger per-core caches, and 3 nm process all contribute to these wins.

The data paints a clear picture. The Xeon 6325P serves as a workstation-class part for rendering and server-side integer workloads, with higher clock speeds and ECC support. The Core Ultra 5 228V excels as a mobile processor for floating-point, encryption, and efficiency-sensitive tasks, delivering better overall average scores and a higher percentile ranking. Users choosing between them should align the decision with their primary workload: rendering and reliability for the Xeon, mobile efficiency and math-heavy processing for the Core Ultra.