OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core Ultra 5 135H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£290PassMark multi-core score:22011N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:4.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2049TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

Intel Core Ultra 5 135H Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.6/10

Overall score

Score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 82% of models
Score components

40%

7.9

Technical score

25%

7.4

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 82% of processors
8.0

Value for money

Value for money
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 86% of models
Score components

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

â–²Better than 86%
7.9

Technical score

Technical score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Score components

60%

7.9

Performance

18%

8.0

Architecture

10%

8.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 84%
7.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 53%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £290
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H

Based on 0 · 3

Reviewers broadly agree it delivers solid all-round performance, with few complaints raised.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 5 135H

Technical score
Technical score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Score components:

60%

7.9

Performance

18%

8.0

Architecture

10%

8.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated graphics

7.9
Reviews score
7.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 86% of models
Score components:

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

8.0
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2049
This processor uses the FCBGA2049 CPU socket, which is older than that of 67.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 74.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
14
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 14 CPU cores, which is more than 85.7% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
CPU threads
18
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 18 CPU threads, which is more than 83.7% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.6 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.6 GHz which is higher than that of 59.9% of processors and equal to that of 4.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.7 GHz & 8x 1.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.7 GHz & 8x1.2 GHz which is higher than that of 56.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
22,011
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 22,011 in PassMark, which is higher than 74% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 70.4% of processors and equal to that of 10.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 4
This processor is built on the Intel 4 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 94.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
L3 cache
18 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 18 MB which is larger than that of 74.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L2 cache
14 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 14 MB which is larger than that of 86.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% of processors.
L1 cache
1,126.4 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,126.4 KB which is larger than that of 88.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 94.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
7,467 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 7,467 MHz, which is higher than that of 90.8% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5600 MHz, which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 96 GB of memory, which is more than 53.4% of processors and equal to 5.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 96EU
This processor uses the Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 96EU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 85.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
8
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 8 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 73.9% of processors and equal to 7.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 94.7% of processors and equal to 1.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.9% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to that of 7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 115 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 6.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 45-75 W
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 5 135H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 8 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Meteor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Meteor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 94% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,103 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,103 vs 5,209
  • 10 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (18 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    18 vs 8
  • 91.9% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (22,011 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    22,011 vs 11,469
  • 4.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    14 MB vs 3 MB
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • 4x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 10.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.4 vs 6.7
  • 9.7% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 5 135H has better value for money than the average processor (7.99 vs 7.3).
    7.99 vs 7.29
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    December 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • Advanced security extensions
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 8 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • 94% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,103 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,103 vs 5,209
  • 10 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (18 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    18 vs 8
  • 91.9% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (22,011 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    22,011 vs 11,469
  • 36.1% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,482 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,482 vs 2,558
  • 52.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,342 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,342 vs 1,535
  • 4.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    P-core 6, E-core 6
    6 vs 4
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x1.7 GHz & 8x1.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.7 GHz & 8x1.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Meteor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Meteor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 4.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    14 MB vs 3 MB
  • 4x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 4 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 4 vs Intel 14 nm
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
    P-cores + E-cores + LP E-cores
  • 2.93x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,126.4 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,126.4 KB vs 384 KB
  • 58.3% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (73.9 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    73.87 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • 2x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (18 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    18 MB vs 9 MB
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.33x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7,467 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    7,467 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 91% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 50% more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (96 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    96 GB vs 64 GB
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 96EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 96EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 10 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (110 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    110 °C vs 100 °C
  • 37.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 30.5% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.285 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 79.7% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    115 W vs 64 W
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 10 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (110 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    110 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 30.5% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.285 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • 79.7% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    115 W vs 64 W
  • 10 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (110 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    110 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0
Retro Tech Dad
≈ estimated
19/03/2024
In-depth review · benchmarks, teardown and battery tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 135H performs better than expected, but its price is hard to justify in a crowded market.
5.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
16/03/2024
Hands-on review · benchmarks and game tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 135H trails rival handhelds in performance, so it is hard to recommend for now.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core Ultra 5 135H

  • Significantly improved integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG) compared to previous UHD/Iris Xe generations
  • Enhanced energy efficiency with a low base TDP of 28W, suitable for ultra-portable devices
  • Includes a dedicated Neural Processing Unit (NPU) for AI-accelerated tasks and background processes
  • Strong multi-core performance in content creation and complex computational workloads
  • Support for modern standards like PCIe Gen 5 and high-speed LPDDR5x RAM
  • Good thermal management for everyday office and productivity tasks

What customers don't like about Intel Core Ultra 5 135H

  • Lower single-core performance compared to some competing chips like the AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS
  • Performance can vary significantly based on the specific laptop's cooling solution and power limits
  • Reduced L3 cache (18MB) compared to higher-end Ultra 7 and Ultra 9 models
  • Locked multiplier prevents manual overclocking for performance enthusiasts
  • Some users feel the performance gains over 13th/14th gen Core i5 chips are marginal for gaming
  • Premium pricing makes it less appealing compared to older, discounted high-performance H-series chips

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H is a mid-range Meteor Lake-H laptop processor featuring 14 cores (4 Performance, 8 Efficient, and 2 Low Power Efficient) and 18 threads, with a max turbo frequency of 4.6 GHz and 18 MB of L3 cache. Its standout characteristics include an integrated Intel Arc GPU (8-cores) and a dedicated AI Boost NPU for hardware-accelerated AI tasks, all operating within a base TDP of 28W (scalable up to 115W). Main pros include significantly improved integrated graphics performance for casual gaming and video editing, excellent power efficiency for longer battery life, and modern connectivity support like PCIe 5.0 and Wi-Fi 7. However, potential cons include a reduced L3 cache compared to higher-tier Ultra 7 models and a dependency on high-speed multi-channel RAM to reach peak GPU performance.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 5 135H with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 5 135H and other processors

No results found