OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core Ultra 5 225H Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£340PassMark benchmark result:28655N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:4.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2049TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

Intel Core Ultra 5 225H Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.5

Overall score

Score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components

90%

8.5

Technical score

10%

?

User score

★Better than 94% of processors
8.5

Technical score

Technical score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components

60%

8.8

Performance

18%

8.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

8.8

Integrated Graphics

★Better than 94% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £340

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 5 225H

Technical score
Technical score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components:

60%

8.8

Performance

18%

8.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

8.8

Integrated Graphics

8.5
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
8.6/ 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
★ Better than 96% of models
Score components:

60%

8.5

Overall score

40%

8.7

Price

8.6
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2049
CPU socket
FCBGA2049
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA2049 CPU socket, which is older than that of 66.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Chipset
HM870, WM880
Chipset
HM870, WM880
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor supports HM870, WM880 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 62.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
14
N. of physical cores
14
â–² Better than 87% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 14 CPU cores, which is more than 87.1% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
CPU threads
14
CPU threads
14
â–² Better than 69% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 14 CPU threads, which is more than 69.3% of processors and equal to 1.7% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.9 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.9 GHz
â–² Better than 76% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.9 GHz which is higher than that of 75.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.7 GHz & 10x 1.3 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.7 GHz & 10x 1.3 GHz
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.7 GHz & 10x1.3 GHz which is higher than that of 65.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Semiconductor size
3 nm
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 96% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
★ Better than 96% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 96.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% of processors.
L3 cache
18 MB
L3 cache
18 MB
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 18 MB which is larger than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 2% of processors.
L2 cache
14 MB
L2 cache
14 MB
â–² Better than 88% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 14 MB which is larger than that of 87.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
L1 cache
1,408 KB
L1 cache
1,408 KB
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,408 KB which is larger than that of 92.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
DDR memory version
DDR5
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
8,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
8,400 MHz
★ Better than 98% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 8,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 98.4% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8400 MHz
★ Better than 99% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-8400 MHz, which is higher than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
â–² Better than 62% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 61.9% of processors and equal to 21.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Graphics 130T
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Graphics 130T
â–² Better than 87% of models
This processor uses the Intel Arc Graphics 130T integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 86.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
112
Integrated GPU execution units
112
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 112 GPU execution units, which is more than 99.2% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
★ Better than 95% of models
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 94.6% of processors and equal to 1.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
â–² Better than 67% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.5% of processors and equal to that of 7% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Base power (PL1)
28 W
â–² Better than 67% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.2% of processors and equal to that of 7.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 115 W which is higher than that of 71.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 2 W
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 5 225H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.71x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    28,655
    â–² Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (28,655 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    28,655 vs 10,572.5
  • 5.9x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    16,466
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (16,466 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    16,466 vs 2,791
  • 2.58x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    12,448
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,448 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,448 vs 4,829
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Arrow Lake
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 71.7% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,292
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,292 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,292 vs 2,500
  • 8 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    14
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • 5.6x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    14 MB
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    14 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 62.7% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,394
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,394 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,394 vs 1,471
  • 31% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has better value for money than the average processor (8.6 vs 6.6).
    8.6 vs 6.56
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 2.71x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    28,655
    â–² Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (28,655 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    28,655 vs 10,572.5
  • 5.9x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    16,466
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (16,466 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    16,466 vs 2,791
  • 2.58x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    12,448
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,448 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,448 vs 4,829
  • 71.7% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,292
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,292 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,292 vs 2,500
  • 8 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    14
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • 62.7% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,394
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,394 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,394 vs 1,471
  • 14% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.9 GHz
    â–² Better than 76% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 6 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    14
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (14 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    14 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.7 GHz & 10 x 1.3 GHz
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x1.7 GHz & 10x1.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.7 GHz & 10x1.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 4 wider front-end design
    Front-end width
    8
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2 – >7
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    P-core 8, E-core 8
    8 vs 4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Arrow Lake
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 5.6x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    14 MB
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    14 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 6x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    3 MB/core
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 75% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 3.67x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    1,408 KB
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1408 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,408 KB vs 384 KB
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 2.25x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    18 MB
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (18 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    18 MB vs 8 MB
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    28
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    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
    PCIe version
    5.0
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 2.86x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    8,400 MHz
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    8,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 2.24x higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    102.4 GB/s
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (102.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR5
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5X-8400 MHz
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-8400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-8400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 2x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    128 GB
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel Arc Graphics 130T
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Graphics 130T vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Graphics 130T vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 4.67x more GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    112
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (112 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    112 vs 24
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    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 TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    110 °C
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (110 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    110 °C vs 100 °C
  • 37.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    28 W
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    28 W
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 24.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.29 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.29 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 91.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    115 W
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    115 W vs 60 W
  • 10 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    110 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 11 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    17
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (17 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    17 vs 28
  • 36% more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 5 225H is more expensive than the average processor (£340 vs £250).
    £340 vs £250
  • 36% more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 5 225H is more expensive than the average processor (£340 vs £250).
    £340 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 11 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    17
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (17 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    17 vs 28
  • 24.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.29 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.29 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 91.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    115 W
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    115 W vs 60 W
  • 10 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    110 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
ct.nl
18/11/2025
Summary of the review
Gigabyte Brix GB-BRU5-225H review: mini-PC with power
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 5 225H

  • Integrated Arc 130T graphics offer strong performance, competitive with AMD's Radeon 860M/870M in some gaming benchmarks.
  • Significant single-core performance improvement (roughly 14-28%) compared to the previous generation Core Ultra 5 125H.
  • Efficient thermal management, often maintaining lower temperatures (under 90°C) than competing AMD chips during heavy tasks.
  • Solid multitasking capabilities for a mid-range chip, making it a good value for budget-conscious productivity and light gaming setups.
  • Improved power efficiency in real-world laptop usage, with some users reporting over 8-9 hours of battery life.

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 5 225H

  • The lack of hyperthreading limits multi-core gains, resulting in only modest improvements over predecessors in some synthetic tests.
  • Performance is highly dependent on the laptop's specific power limits (TDP); lower-wattage models may struggle to compete with AMD alternatives.
  • Requires high power draw (up to 80W PL2) to reach peak performance levels, which can be brutal on smaller laptop chassis.
  • Lacks AVX-512 support, which may affect specific high-end computational or professional workloads.
  • Early driver support and game optimizations for the new Arrow Lake architecture can be inconsistent.

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H is a high-end mobile processor from the Arrow Lake-H series, featuring 14 cores and 14 threads (4 Performance cores up to 4.9 GHz, 8 Efficiency cores, and 2 Low Power Efficiency cores) with 18 MB of L3 cache. Built on a 3nm process, it integrates an Intel Arc 130T iGPU with 7 or 8 Xe cores and a dedicated AI Boost NPU delivering 13 TOPS for AI tasks. Its main pros include strong single-threaded performance for gaming, excellent integrated graphics that rival entry-level discrete GPUs, and a power-efficient 28W base TDP that can scale to 115W for high-demand tasks. However, it lacks hyper-threading, which can limit its effectiveness in heavy multi-threaded productivity workflows, and it may require high power consumption to achieve peak performance compared to some competitors.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 5 225H 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 225H and other processors

No results found