News Core Ultra 5 225F barely outperforms Core i5-13600 in Geekbench — low-end Ultra 5 chip comes with six P-core and four E-cores

[Admin]

A benchmark result of Intel's upcoming Core Ultra 5 225F was discovered on Geekbench, featuring 10 cores in total and a benchmark scores very similar to the Core i5-13600.

Core Ultra 5 225F barely outperforms Core i5-13600 in Geekbench — low-end Ultra 5 chip comes with six P-core and four E-cores : Read more

 

[Moores_Ghost]

The incredible part is it does it using less power and no hyper threading. I don't think people see the IPC uplift. Comparing apples to oranges.
I'd love to see a i5 13600 vs CU 5 225f while the i5 has hyper threading turned off.

 

[AngelusF]

I'd love to see a i5 13600 vs CU 5 225f while the i5 has hyper threading turned off.

Isn't that like saying your car can go as fast as a Ferrari with one of its wheels taken off?

 

[Mama Changa]

Why on earth is the 225 being compared to the 13600 when it's clearly a 13400/14400 replacement? And in that regard it is doing much better despite the lack of threads. I have no love for Arrow Lake, but this is a silly article with a headline that makes it sound like the 225 is a failure.

 

[Gururu]

Yes, the headline is click bait.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

The incredible part is it does it using less power and no hyper threading. I don't think people see the IPC uplift. Comparing apples to oranges.
I'd love to see a i5 13600 vs CU 5 225f while the i5 has hyper threading turned off.

Comparing it to the 5950X, at least in Geekbench, it's about 15% faster single and 7% faster multi even though it has 6 fewer cores and 23 fewer threads. Basically it's saying Intel's low end is faster than AMD's high end from 4 years ago while probably using half the power. I'd say that's fairly insane, especially if this boost is to be greater in short course from a software patch.

 

[redgarl]

Comparing it to the 5950X, at least in Geekbench, it's about 15% faster single and 7% faster multi even though it has 6 fewer cores and 23 fewer threads. Basically it's saying Intel's low end is faster than AMD's high end from 4 years ago while probably using half the power. I'd say that's fairly insane, especially if this boost is to be greater in short course from a software patch.

AM4 was on DDR4 and on 7nm...

This is on 3nm and DDR5... and consume more than a 5950x.

 

[newtechldtech]

The incredible part is it does it using less power and no hyper threading. I don't think people see the IPC uplift. Comparing apples to oranges.
I'd love to see a i5 13600 vs CU 5 225f while the i5 has hyper threading turned off.

why turning anything off ???

 

[ezst036]

Isn't that like saying your car can go as fast as a Ferrari with one of its wheels taken off?

I read it as saying your car without a turbo can go as fast as a ferrari with the ferrari's turbo shut off.

I think its a valid comparison, the first comment.

No HT vs No HT.

Some of the old-school review sites used to do good reviews like that.(in part of a larger review, often times) Know where we might find a good review website out there?

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

AM4 was on DDR4 and on 7nm...

This is on 3nm and DDR5... and consume more than a 5950x.

Yes I know it's DDR5 vs DDR4 and the process nodes are more advanced, but my point was that it's still a 10c/10t CPU outperforming, sometimes by a large margin, a 16c/32t CPU that's only 4 years old, and for a company which for years gave only marginal IPC boosts per generation.

As for power consumption, the 125w rated 245K with 4 more cores and threads uses 134w under blender stress vs the 5950x's 117w and 71w vs 108w in gaming (Techpowrup tests) so saying the 65w 225F will consume more power than the 5950x seems unlikely.