Intel Core Ultra 5 245K vs Intel Xeon Phi 7290 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K and Intel Xeon Phi 7290 represent two radically different design philosophies from Intel, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The Core Ultra 5 is a modern 14-core desktop processor built on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the Xeon Phi 7290 is a 72-core many-core server part from 2016 built on Intel's 14 nm node. Despite the Xeon Phi's massive core count advantage, the benchmark data reveals a surprisingly competitive overall picture, with the two chips trading blows across different workload types. The average benchmark scores are remarkably close — 54053 for the Core Ultra 5 versus 53469 for the Xeon Phi — placing both at the 91st percentile among all CPUs. This near-parity in overall standing makes the individual benchmark deltas all the more revealing about where each architecture excels and struggles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is the single-thread performance gap. In PassMark's single-thread test, the Core Ultra 5 scores 4714 compared to the Xeon Phi's 485, a staggering 872% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and reflects the fundamental difference in per-core efficiency between a modern 5.20 GHz boost clock design and a 1.70 GHz many-core part. Cinebench R20 single-core tells a similar story: 2169 versus 898, a 141.5% lead for the Core Ultra 5. Even in Cinebench R15 single-core, the margin is 49.8% (322 vs 215), showing the Xeon Phi's per-core weakness is consistent across all single-threaded workloads.

The multi-threaded picture is more nuanced. The Core Ultra 5 dominates in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 25066 versus 15163, a 65.3% advantage, and extends this lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core at 141.3% (15368 vs 6368). The PassMark multi-thread score also favors the Core Ultra 5 by 141.3%, with 43047 versus 17839. However, the Xeon Phi 7290 fights back in several specific PassMark sub-tests. In integer math, the Xeon Phi scores 126922 versus 98524, a 22.4% lead. Data compression also favors the Xeon Phi at 564535 versus 458817, an 18.7% margin. Random string sorting goes to the Xeon Phi by 19.7% (68593 vs 55098), and extended instructions see a 9.4% Xeon Phi advantage (41517 vs 37617).

The encryption test is another decisive Core Ultra 5 victory. The 245K scores 33286 versus 12505, a 166.2% lead. Prime number finding shows the largest proportional Core Ultra 5 win at 263.2% (414 vs 114), and floating-point math favors the Core Ultra 5 by 175.6% (130678 vs 47417). Physics simulation also goes to the Core Ultra 5 by 36.5% (3081 vs 2257). The single closest contest is Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Xeon Phi edges out a 0.4% win (2140 vs 2132). Overall, the Core Ultra 5 wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head tests, with the Xeon Phi taking 5.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload characteristics. For any task that relies on per-core performance — whether that's gaming, typical desktop productivity, or lightly-threaded applications — the Core Ultra 5 245K is the definitive choice. The 872% single-thread advantage is not a marginal improvement; it fundamentally changes what software can run well. Modern applications that assume high-frequency cores will see dramatic performance differences.

The Xeon Phi 7290, however, demonstrates that raw core count still matters in specific throughput-oriented scenarios. Its wins in integer math, data compression, random string sorting, and extended instructions suggest that workloads which can fully utilize 288 threads and tolerate lower per-core speeds can extract meaningful performance from the older chip. The 1.1% overall average benchmark score difference between the two (53469 vs 54053) and the shared 91st percentile ranking indicate that these are not processors in different performance classes — they are processors with different performance profiles.

For a user building a system today, the Core Ultra 5 is the rational choice for almost any general-purpose role. It offers competitive multi-threaded performance while providing enormous single-thread headroom. The Xeon Phi's niche is narrow: it is a specialized many-core compute device for workloads that were specifically designed to scale across hundreds of threads and can tolerate its low clock speeds. The data does not support choosing the Xeon Phi for mixed or unpredictable workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 245K secures wins in all three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) and both Cinebench single-core tests, which suggests it is the stronger choice for content creation, 3D rendering, and any workflow that uses Cinebench-style rendering engines. Its PassMark wins in encryption (166.2% ahead), prime finding (263.2% ahead), floating-point math (175.6% ahead), and physics (36.5% ahead) point to superiority in scientific computing, cryptography, and simulation tasks that benefit from high IPC and modern instruction efficiency.

The Xeon Phi 7290's five wins are all in PassMark sub-tests that reward massive parallelism: integer math (22.4% ahead), data compression (18.7% ahead), random string sorting (19.7% ahead), extended instructions (9.4% ahead), and the narrow Cinebench R23 single-core win (0.4% ahead). These results suggest the Xeon Phi maintains relevance in data processing pipelines, compression workloads, and certain integer-heavy server tasks where its 288 threads can be kept busy. The near-tie in Cinebench R23 single-core is notable, but it is the only single-threaded test the Xeon Phi wins, and by a negligible margin.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is dramatically faster in single-threaded tests. It scores 4714 in PassMark single-thread versus 485 for the Xeon Phi 7290, an 872% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 leads 2169 to 898, a 141.5% margin.

Q: Does the Xeon Phi 7290 win any multi-threaded benchmarks?

A: No, the Xeon Phi does not win any of the multi-threaded Cinebench tests or the PassMark multi-thread test. The Core Ultra 5 leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core by 65.3% (25066 vs 15163) and in PassMark multi-thread by 141.3% (43047 vs 17839). The Xeon Phi's wins come in specific PassMark sub-tests like integer math and data compression.

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of these two CPUs?

A: Both processors are at the 91st percentile among all CPUs. The Core Ultra 5 has an average benchmark score of 54053, while the Xeon Phi 7290 scores 53469, a difference of 1.1%. The Core Ultra 5's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 6505P at 53701 (0.7% delta), while the Xeon Phi's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53288 (0.3% delta).

Q: In which specific workloads does the Xeon Phi outperform the Core Ultra 5?

A: The Xeon Phi wins in PassMark integer math (126922 vs 98524, a 22.4% lead), data compression (564535 vs 458817, an 18.7% lead), random string sorting (68593 vs 55098, a 19.7% lead), and extended instructions (41517 vs 37617, a 9.4% lead). It also narrowly wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 0.4%.

Q: How do the core counts compare between these two processors?

A: The Xeon Phi 7290 has 72 cores and 288 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads. Despite having over five times the cores and over twenty times the threads, the Xeon Phi only manages to win 5 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the PassMark physics performance difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245K scores 3081 in PassMark physics versus 2257 for the Xeon Phi 7290, giving the Core Ultra 5 a 36.5% advantage in this simulation workload.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The Core Ultra 5 245K uses the Arrow Lake architecture (codename Arrow Lake-S) built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. It features 14 cores with 14 threads, with per-core L1 cache of 192 KB and per-core L2 cache of 3 MB, plus 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon Phi 7290, in contrast, uses the Knights Landing architecture built on Intel's own 14 nm node with 8,000 million transistors. It has 72 cores and 288 threads, with smaller per-core caches: 32 KB L1 and 512 KB L2, and no L3 cache listed. The Xeon Phi's die size is not provided in the data.

The Core Ultra 5 uses a dual-channel DDR5 memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon Phi supports DDR4 with no memory bus or bandwidth figures listed. Both support ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 has Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes (CPU only) and integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Xeon Phi has no integrated graphics and no PCIe data listed. The Core Ultra 5 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon Phi's is locked. The Core Ultra 5 has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost clock of 5.20 GHz, compared to the Xeon Phi's 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The Core Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Xeon Phi uses Intel Socket 3647.

Specification Differences

The Core Ultra 5 245K and Xeon Phi 7290 differ in nearly every key specification. The Core Ultra 5 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Xeon Phi has 72 cores and 288 threads. Base clocks are 4.20 GHz versus 1500 MHz, and boost clocks are 5.20 GHz versus 1700 MHz. Thermal design power differs substantially: 125 W for the Core Ultra 5 versus 245 W for the Xeon Phi. The Core Ultra 5's socket is Intel Socket 1851, while the Xeon Phi uses Intel Socket 3647. The Core Ultra 5 is on a 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size, while the Xeon Phi uses Intel's 14 nm node with 8,000 million transistors and no die size data.

Cache configurations are also distinct: the Core Ultra 5 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3, while the Xeon Phi has 32 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core with no L3 listed. Memory support differs with DDR5 for the Core Ultra 5 and DDR4 for the Xeon Phi, with the Core Ultra 5 having a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon Phi lists no bus or bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 includes Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes and integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the Xeon Phi has no PCIe or graphics data. The Core Ultra 5's market segment is Desktop with an active production status, while the Xeon Phi is Server/Workstation with no production status given. The Core Ultra 5 has an unlocked multiplier, the Xeon Phi is locked. The Core Ultra 5's launch MSRP is $319, and its part number is SRQCT, while the Xeon Phi has no launch MSRP and part number SR2WY.