Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between the Intel Core 5 221E and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H reveals a split profile that defies simple categorization. The Ultra 7 265H wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, but the Core 5 221E secures decisive victories in four areas, including some of the most heavily weighted synthetic workloads.

Starting with the most dramatic divergence, Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Core 5 221E at 3661 against the Ultra 7 265H at 2080, a 76% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 5 221E scores 25933 versus 19940, a 30.1% lead. These results suggest that in the R23 workload specifically, the Core 5 221E's architecture extracts substantially more performance from each thread and from the overall scheduler.

Conversely, the Ultra 7 265H dominates the Cinebench R15 and R20 tests. In R15 multi-core, it scores 2989 against 2613, a 12.6% win. In R20 multi-core, it reaches 12131 versus 10891, a 10.2% margin. The R20 single-core test also favors the Ultra 7 265H at 1712 versus 1537, again a 10.2% delta. The R15 single-core test flips back to the Core 5 221E, which posts 368 against 307, a 19.9% lead. This inconsistency across Cinebench versions points to workload-specific scaling behavior rather than a universal performance hierarchy.

The PassMark suite reinforces the Ultra 7 265H's overall dominance. In data encryption, the Ultra 7 265H scores 26005 versus 19205, a 26.1% lead. Extended instructions show a 32% gap at 26805 versus 18216. Floating point math favors the Ultra 7 265H at 109123 against 79028, a 27.6% margin. Prime number finding is particularly lopsided: 335 versus 173, a 48.4% advantage. Data compression is closer, with the Ultra 7 265H at 334711 against 324285, only a 3.1% gap.

The Core 5 221E fights back in integer math, posting 117813 against 85479, a 37.8% win. This is its second-largest victory and indicates strong ALU throughput. PassMark multithread goes to the Ultra 7 265H at 34027 versus 30510, a 10.3% margin. Physics simulation also favors the Ultra 7 265H at 2497 against 2230, a 10.7% gap. Random string sorting shows a 7.5% advantage for the Ultra 7 265H at 40742 versus 37686. Single-thread PassMark scores are close, with the Ultra 7 265H at 4334 and the Core 5 221E at 4147, a 4.3% difference.

The aggregate benchmark averages place the Ultra 7 265H at 41621 against the Core 5 221E's 40144, a 3.7% overall gap. Percentile rankings differ by one point: the Ultra 7 265H sits at the 88th percentile, the Core 5 221E at the 87th. The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce their competitive positioning. The Core 5 221E sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700, AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, AMD Ryzen 9 270, and Intel Core i9-13905H. The Ultra 7 265H is similarly clustered around the Intel Core 7 251TE, Intel Core i7-14650HX, Intel Core i7-12850HX, and AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, all within 0.6%.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data indicates that the Core 5 221E excels in specific integer-heavy and Cinebench R23 workloads. Its 76% single-core R23 advantage and 30.1% multi-core R23 advantage suggest that software optimized for the R23 rendering pipeline will see substantial gains. The 37.8% integer math win further implies that arithmetic-heavy applications, such as compilers, data processing, and simulation code, could benefit from this chip's execution resources.

The Ultra 7 265H takes the broader set of wins, particularly in encryption, extended instructions, floating point, and prime number finding. The 26.1% encryption lead and 32% extended instructions lead indicate strength in cryptography and SIMD-heavy code. The 48.4% prime number advantage points to efficient division and modular arithmetic. The 27.6% floating point margin suggests better FPU throughput for scientific computing and graphics-related workloads.

PassMark multithread and physics both favor the Ultra 7 265H by about 10%, which indicates that general multi-threaded productivity tasks and physics simulations run faster on the mobile chip. Data compression and random string sorting, while close, still favor the Ultra 7 265H, showing a modest edge in memory-bound and text-processing tasks. Single-thread PassMark also favors the Ultra 7 265H, though by a narrow 4.3%.

For users prioritizing Cinebench R23 rendering, integer math, or the specific R15 single-core test, the Core 5 221E is the clear choice. For everything else in the recorded data, the Ultra 7 265H delivers superior scores, often by double-digit margins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design families. The Core 5 221E is built on Bartlett Lake, a 10 nm Intel node with a 257 mm² die. The Ultra 7 265H uses Arrow Lake-H, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process. This process difference likely contributes to the power and efficiency profiles, though the data does not include direct efficiency metrics.

Core counts differ: the Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The thread count inversion is notable. The Core 5 221E supports hyper-threading, yielding 20 threads from 14 cores. The Ultra 7 265H has no hyper-threading, so its 16 cores produce exactly 16 threads. This explains why the Ultra 7 265H wins some multi-threaded tests despite having fewer threads: it has two additional physical cores.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 221E provides 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core, with 24 MB shared L3. The Ultra 7 265H offers 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, also with 24 MB shared L3. The Ultra 7 265H's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely improve single-thread efficiency and reduce memory traffic. Both share the same total L3 capacity.

The memory controllers differ. The Core 5 221E supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The measured memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 7 265H at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 5 221E. ECC memory support is present on both.

PCIe configurations also differ. The Core 5 221E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 265H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The desktop chip has twice the PCIe lane count, which matters for discrete GPUs and expansion cards. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 265H uses Arc Graphics 140T. No benchmark scores for integrated graphics are in the database, so the comparison cannot be quantified.

The Core 5 221E targets the desktop market segment on Intel Socket 1700. The Ultra 7 265H is a mobile chip on Intel BGA 2049. Both were released on the same date, January 12, 2025, and both are listed as Active production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in several documented fields. Core counts: 14 for the Core 5 221E versus 16 for the Ultra 7 265H. Thread counts: 20 versus 16. Base clocks: 2.70 GHz versus 2.20 GHz. Boost clocks: 5.20 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP: 65 watts versus 28 watts. Sockets: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2049.

Process nodes: 10 nm (Intel) versus 3 nm (TSMC). Die size: 257 mm² for the Core 5 221E, no recorded value for the Ultra 7 265H. L1 cache per core: 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 cache per core: 2 MB versus 3 MB. L3 cache: 24 MB shared on both. Memory support: DDR4/DDR5 versus DDR5/LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes: 16 versus 8, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Graphics 140T. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 221E is $232; the Ultra 7 265H has no recorded launch MSRP. Part numbers differ: SRQDVQ659 versus SRQAQ.

FAQ

Q: Which chip has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H records an average benchmark score of 41621, while the Intel Core 5 221E averages 40144.

Q: How large is the single-core Cinebench R23 gap?

A: The Core 5 221E scores 3661 versus the Ultra 7 265H's 2080, a 76% advantage for the Core 5 221E.

Q: Does the Ultra 7 265H win every multi-threaded test?

A: No. The Core 5 221E wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 30.1% (25933 versus 19940) and PassMark integer math by 37.8% (117813 versus 85479). The Ultra 7 265H wins R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, PassMark multithread, and PassMark physics.

Q: What explains the thread count difference?

A: The Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating hyper-threading. The Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no hyper-threading and two additional physical cores.

Q: Which chip supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The Core 5 221E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), double the Ultra 7 265H's 8 lanes.

Q: Are both chips on the same process node?

A: No. The Core 5 221E uses Intel's 10 nm node with a 257 mm² die. The Ultra 7 265H uses TSMC's 3 nm node, with no die size recorded.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two processors by workload type and platform constraints. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H is the stronger all-around performer, winning 13 of 17 head-to-head tests and posting a higher average score (41621 versus 40144) and a higher percentile rank (88 versus 87). Its wins span encryption, extended instructions, floating point, prime finding, physics, multithread, data compression, and single-thread PassMark. For mobile users who need broad application performance, the data supports the Ultra 7 265H.

The Intel Core 5 221E wins four specific tests, but those wins are substantial. The 76% R23 single-core lead and 30.1% R23 multi-core lead indicate that rendering workloads built around Cinebench R23 will run significantly faster on the desktop chip. The 37.8% integer math advantage points to integer-heavy computational tasks. The 19.9% R15 single-core win adds another specific use case.

Platform choice matters as much as raw scores. The Core 5 221E is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700 with 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, DDR4 and DDR5 support, and a 65 watt TDP. The Ultra 7 265H is a mobile processor on BGA 2049 with 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, DDR5 and LPDDR5X support, and a 28 watt TDP. Users who need expansion slots or dual-generation memory compatibility should consider the desktop part. Users who need lower power consumption and mobile integration should consider the Ultra 7 265H.

The database shows no clear overall winner for every scenario. The Ultra 7 265H delivers more wins and a higher aggregate score. The Core 5 221E delivers larger margins in its winning categories. The choice depends on whether the workload matches the Core 5 221E's integer and R23 strengths or the Ultra 7 265H's broader multi-threaded and cryptographic advantages.