Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison
Intel Core 5 221E
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus
The Verdict
The recorded data presents a clear split between the Intel Core 5 221E and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus dominates the benchmark suite, winning 15 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. Its average benchmark score of 66855 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Core 5 221E's 40144 average and 87th percentile. In raw aggregate performance, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is roughly 66% ahead.
The Core 5 221E holds two specific wins, both in Cinebench single-core tests. It leads by 12.2% in R15 single-core and by a substantial 61.9% in R23 single-core. This indicates the 221E has a specific strength in certain legacy single-threaded workloads that does not carry over to modern benchmarks like PassMark's single-thread test, where it trails by 12.8%.
For workloads that scale across cores, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the definitive choice. Its multicore wins range from 16% in Cinebench R23 to 64.4% in PassMark's prime number calculation. The Ultra 5 also wins every PassMark subtest, including integer math by a slim 5.8% margin and floating-point math by 51.4%.
The Core 5 221E, with its 65 TDP and older architecture, serves a specific role. Its single-core Cinebench victories suggest it can handle certain lightly threaded tasks with high efficiency. However, its lower core count and older process node result in significantly lower throughput in parallel workloads. The data does not support choosing the 221E for any task requiring sustained multi-threaded performance.
The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the higher-performance part across nearly every measured dimension. It also posts a higher PassMark single-thread score of 4757 versus 4147, indicating its per-core performance is generally superior despite the 221E's Cinebench single-core anomalies. The 250K Plus is the appropriate selection for users prioritizing maximum throughput, modern feature support, and higher overall benchmark standing.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It features 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Its thermal design power is 65 watts. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh, fabricated on a 3 nm node at TSMC. It has 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, consuming 125 watts.
The thread counts reveal a fundamental design difference. The 221E has 20 threads from 14 cores, indicating Hyper-Threading support. The 250K Plus has 18 threads from 18 cores, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. Despite having fewer threads, the 250K Plus wins all multicore benchmarks, showing its physical cores and higher clocks compensate for the lack of threading.
Cache hierarchies differ considerably. The 221E offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The 250K Plus provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the 250K Plus likely contribute to its higher single-thread score in PassMark.
Memory support diverges sharply. The 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 250K Plus supports DDR5 exclusively. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the 250K Plus achieves 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 89.6 GB/s for the 221E. Both processors support ECC memory.
PCIe connectivity differs. The 221E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the 250K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the 221E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the 250K Plus includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the 221E does not. Die sizes are similar at 257 mm² for the 221E and 243 mm² for the 250K Plus, though the latter integrates 17,800 million transistors. The 250K Plus uses Socket 1851, while the 221E uses Socket 1700. The 221E launched on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $232, and the 250K Plus launched on 2026-03-10 with a launch MSRP of $199.
Where Each One Wins
The Core 5 221E wins exactly two benchmarks: Cinebench R15 single-core (368 vs 328, a 12.2% advantage) and Cinebench R23 single-core (3661 vs 2261, a 61.9% advantage). These results indicate the 221E's architecture, with its 5.20 GHz boost clock and Hyper-Threading, can outperform the 250K Plus in specific legacy single-threaded rendering workloads. This makes the 221E a plausible choice for old software that relies on single-core Cinebench performance patterns.
The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every other test. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4757 versus 4147 shows it is faster in modern single-threaded tasks by 12.8%. Its Cinebench R20 single-core score of 2603 versus 1537 demonstrates a 41% lead in that rendering generation. The 250K Plus also wins Cinebench R15 multicore by 43.7% and R20 multicore by 40.9%.
In data workloads, the 250K Plus shows massive advantages. Data compression scores 568721 versus 324285, a 43% lead. Data encryption scores 42144 versus 19205, a 54.4% lead. Extended instructions score 44565 versus 18216, a 59.1% gap. Prime number finding shows a 64.4% lead (486 vs 173). Floating-point math is 51.4% higher (162692 vs 79028). Integer math is close, only 5.8% apart, with the 250K Plus at 125091 versus 117813.
Multithreaded performance favors the 250K Plus across the board. PassMark multithread scores 51596 versus 30510, a 40.9% lead. Physics scores 3494 versus 2230, a 36.2% lead. Random string sorting scores 69090 versus 37686, a 45.5% lead. The 250K Plus also wins the Cinebench R23 multicore test by 16% (30867 vs 25933).
The data indicates the 221E is a specialized part for legacy single-core Cinebench workloads. The 250K Plus is the superior choice for all modern applications, multi-threaded tasks, data processing, and general single-threaded performance as measured by PassMark.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66855, while the Intel Core 5 221E has an average score of 40144. The 250K Plus sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 221E's 87th percentile.
Q: Does the Core 5 221E win any benchmarks?
A: Yes, the 221E wins two tests: Cinebench R15 single-core (368 vs 328, a 12.2% lead) and Cinebench R23 single-core (3661 vs 2261, a 61.9% lead). It loses all other 15 head-to-head comparisons.
Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?
A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core 5 221E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Both use dual-channel memory buses.
Q: What are the core and thread counts?
A: The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The 250K Plus does not use simultaneous multithreading, yet still wins all multicore benchmarks.
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core 5 221E has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 250K Plus also has a higher base clock of 4.20 GHz versus 2.70 GHz.
Q: How large is the L3 cache on each processor?
A: The Core 5 221E has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The 250K Plus also has larger L1 and L2 caches per core.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The largest win for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus occurs in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The 250K Plus scores 486 versus 173 for the 221E, a 64.4% advantage. This test heavily favors the 250K Plus's 18 physical cores and higher clocks, indicating its integer-heavy computation capability.
PassMark extended instructions shows the second-largest gap. The 250K Plus scores 44565, while the 221E scores 18216, a 59.1% difference. This test measures SIMD and specialized instruction throughput, where the newer 3 nm architecture with its larger caches provides a clear edge.
Data encryption shows a 54.4% lead for the 250K Plus (42144 vs 19205). Floating-point math follows at 51.4% (162692 vs 79028). These results confirm the 250K Plus's superiority in mathematically intensive workloads. Random string sorting shows a 45.5% lead (69090 vs 37686), and data compression shows a 43% lead (568721 vs 324285).
Cinebench multicore results favor the 250K Plus but with varying margins. R15 multicore shows a 43.7% lead (4640 vs 2613). R20 multicore shows a 40.9% lead (18442 vs 10891). PassMark multithread also shows a 40.9% lead (51596 vs 30510). Physics shows a 36.2% lead (3494 vs 2230). The smallest multicore gap is in Cinebench R23, where the 250K Plus leads by only 16% (30867 vs 25933).
PassMark integer math shows the closest overall result. The 250K Plus scores 125091 versus 117813 for the 221E, a mere 5.8% difference. This suggests the 221E's 20 threads provide some competitive integer throughput despite its older architecture, though it still loses.
PassMark single-thread shows a 12.8% lead for the 250K Plus (4757 vs 4147). This is the only single-threaded test the 250K Plus wins. The 221E wins the other two single-threaded tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the largest win for the 221E at 61.9% (3661 vs 2261). Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 12.2% lead (368 vs 328). Notably, Cinebench R20 single-core goes to the 250K Plus by 41% (2603 vs 1537), which conflicts with the R15 and R23 results.
The Cinebench R23 single-core result for the 250K Plus (2261) appears anomalous compared to its R20 single-core score (2603). The 221E's R23 single-core score of 3661 is unusually high relative to its R20 score of 1537. These inconsistencies suggest the 221E's legacy architecture handles certain Cinebench versions differently, but the data records these results as measured.
Overall, the head-to-head data confirms the 250K Plus as the dominant performer in 15 of 17 tests. Its wins span rendering, data processing, encryption, and general computation. The 221E's two wins are isolated to Cinebench single-core tests, which do not predict its performance in PassMark single-thread or Cinebench R20 single-core. The 250K Plus delivers consistently higher throughput across the benchmark suite.