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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF and the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 represent two radically different approaches to computing, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear split: the Ultra 5 245KF dominates in most modern workloads, while the Xeon Phi 7290 retains specific strengths in data-agnostic parallel tasks. This analysis compares their benchmark results, architectural foundations, and the use cases where each part still holds relevance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark suite reveals a lopsided contest, with the Ultra 5 245KF securing 13 wins against the Xeon Phi 7290's 4. The most extreme margin comes in single-threaded performance, where the Ultra 5 245KF scores 4715 in passmark_single_thread versus 485 for the Xeon Phi 7290, a staggering delta of 872.2%. This is not merely a generational gap; it reflects the fundamental difference in per-core efficiency between a 3nm Arrow Lake design and a 14nm Knights Landing part.

In Cinebench tests, the Ultra 5 245KF consistently leads by approximately 141.7% across all versions. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 36647 against 15163, while in single-core it posts 5173 versus 2140. The pattern is identical in R15 and R20, with deltas of 141.7% and 141.9% respectively. This uniformity suggests that the Xeon Phi's massive thread count (288 threads) cannot compensate for its weak individual cores in rendering workloads that scale with both frequency and IPC.

The Xeon Phi 7290 wins come in specific PassMark sub-tests. Its most notable victory is in data compression, scoring 564535 against 460123, a delta of -18.5% in favor of the Xeon Phi. It also leads in integer math (126922 vs 98854, -22.1%), extended instructions (41517 vs 37912, -8.7%), and random string sorting (68593 vs 55206, -19.5%). These wins highlight workloads where the Xeon Phi's 72 cores and wide vector units can process large datasets without needing high per-thread performance.

The Ultra 5 245KF's other wins are equally decisive. In floating point math, it scores 131546 against 47417, a 177.4% advantage. Data encryption shows a 166.9% lead (33381 vs 12505), and find prime numbers sees a 264.9% advantage (416 vs 114). Even in passmark_physics, which often favors many-core parts, the Ultra 5 245KF wins with 2998 versus 2257, a 32.8% margin. The overall passmark_multithread score also favors the Ultra 5 245KF at 43110 versus 17839, a 141.7% delta.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 5 245KF is the clear choice for any workload that depends on single-thread performance or modern instruction-level parallelism. Its 5.20 GHz boost clock, combined with 14 cores and 14 threads, makes it superior in Cinebench rendering, encryption, and floating-point calculations. The data shows it is also better in physics simulations and prime number finding, which often stress branch prediction and scalar execution. For desktop users, developers, or anyone running mixed workloads, the Ultra 5 245KF's 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms its broad applicability.

The Xeon Phi 7290 wins in four specific PassMark sub-tests, all of which involve processing large volumes of data with minimal branching. Data compression, integer math, extended instructions, and random string sorting are classic throughput-oriented tasks. Its 288 threads allow it to saturate memory bandwidth and keep all cores busy, even if each individual thread is slow. The Xeon Phi 7290 also matches the Ultra 5 245KF's overall percentile (91), but its average benchmark score of 53469 is lower than 55093, indicating that its wins are narrower in scope.

The Xeon Phi's wins are not trivial. In data compression, it outperforms the Ultra 5 245KF by 104,412 points, a significant margin for archival or database workloads. In integer math, it leads by 28,068 points. These are not edge cases; they represent real-world tasks where the Xeon Phi's architecture is optimized. However, the Ultra 5 245KF's wins are both more numerous and more decisive, with seven of its victories exceeding 100% delta.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most users: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is the superior processor. It wins 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including all Cinebench tests and the aggregate passmark_multithread score. Its single-thread performance is nearly 9x higher, and it maintains a 141.7% lead in multicore rendering. The Ultra 5 245KF also has a higher average benchmark score (55093 vs 53469) and a more recent architecture, released in 2024 versus 2016.

The Xeon Phi 7290 should only be considered for the specific workloads where it wins. If your primary task involves data compression, integer-heavy computations, or random string sorting, the Xeon Phi's 72 cores and 288 threads provide a measurable advantage. Its support for ECC memory also makes it suitable for data integrity-critical server environments. However, these advantages come with a 245W TDP, versus 125W for the Ultra 5 245KF, and a much slower base clock of 1.50 GHz.

For a desktop, workstation, or general-purpose server, the Ultra 5 245KF is the logical pick. It offers a balanced mix of high-frequency cores, a 24 MB shared L3 cache, and support for DDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon Phi 7290, with its 32 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core and no L3 cache, is a specialized accelerator that has been superseded for most tasks. The verdict is clear: choose the Ultra 5 245KF for versatility and raw performance, and only choose the Xeon Phi 7290 if your workload exactly matches its narrow set of strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is overwhelmingly superior, scoring 4715 in passmark_single_thread compared to 485 for the Xeon Phi 7290, a delta of 872.2%. It also leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with 5173 versus 2140.

Q: Does the Xeon Phi 7290 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 4 of 17 head-to-head tests: data compression (564535 vs 460123), integer math (126922 vs 98854), extended instructions (41517 vs 37912), and random string sorting (68593 vs 55206).

Q: How do the two compare in multicore rendering?

A: The Ultra 5 245KF leads by 141.7% in all Cinebench multicore tests. In Cinebench R23, it scores 36647 versus 15163 for the Xeon Phi 7290.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Xeon Phi 7290 has 72 cores and 288 threads, while the Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads. Despite the Xeon Phi's higher counts, the Ultra 5 245KF wins the passmark_multithread test with 43110 versus 17839.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 supports ECC memory. The Ultra 5 245KF does not, which may be a consideration for server or workstation deployments requiring error correction.

Q: What are the release dates for these processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF was released on 2024-10-23, while the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 was released on 2016-06-19.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors is the root cause of their divergent benchmark results. The Ultra 5 245KF is built on Arrow Lake-S architecture using a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. In contrast, the Xeon Phi 7290 uses Knights Landing architecture on Intel's 14 nm process, with 8,000 million transistors and no published die size.

The core designs are fundamentally different. The Ultra 5 245KF features 14 cores and 14 threads (no hyperthreading), with a base clock of 4.20 GHz boosting to 5.20 GHz. Each core has 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2, with a shared 24 MB L3 cache. The Xeon Phi 7290 has 72 cores and 288 threads (4 threads per core), with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost of 1.70 GHz. Each core has only 32 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The Xeon Phi's reliance on many slow cores is evident in its single-thread deficit.

Memory and platform support also differ sharply. The Ultra 5 245KF uses DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, achieving 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and lacks ECC support. It uses Intel Socket 1851 and PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Xeon Phi 7290 uses DDR4 memory, has ECC support, and uses Intel Socket 3647. The Xeon Phi's memory bus specifications are not listed, but its architecture was designed for high-bandwidth memory access, a trait that contributes to its data compression and integer math wins.

The production status and market positioning are also distinct. The Ultra 5 245KF is an active desktop part with an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon Phi 7290's production status is not listed and it has a locked multiplier. The Xeon Phi targets the server/workstation segment, while the Ultra 5 245KF is explicitly a desktop processor. The Ultra 5 245KF has a launch MSRP of $294; the Xeon Phi 7290 has no listed launch MSRP. Finally, the Ultra 5 245KF has no integrated graphics, and the Xeon Phi 7290's integrated graphics status is not specified. These differences in node, cache hierarchy, memory support, and platform features explain why the Ultra 5 245KF dominates in most benchmarks while the Xeon Phi 7290 retains niche advantages in data-heavy parallel tasks.