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 226V review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,010PassMark multi-core score:18090N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2833TDP (Thermal design power):17 W

Intel Core Ultra 5 226V 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.

7.4/10

Overall score

Score
7.4/ 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 76% of models
Score components

40%

7.2

Technical score

25%

7.8

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 76% of processors
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 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–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

5.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 83%
7.2

Technical score

Technical score
7.2/ 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 72% of models
Score components

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

8.3

Architecture

10%

6.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.4

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 72%
7.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.8/ 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–² Better than 61% of models

80%

7.9

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–²Better than 61%
?

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~ £1,010
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...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #1 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 5 226V

Technical score
Technical score
7.2/ 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 72% of models
Score components:

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

8.3

Architecture

10%

6.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.4

Integrated graphics

7.2
Reviews score
7.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 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–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

5.2

Price

6.7
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
FCBGA2833
This processor uses the FCBGA2833 CPU socket, which is older than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% 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
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 53.9% of processors and equal to that of 5.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.1 GHz & 4x 2.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.1 GHz & 4x2.1 GHz which is higher than that of 58% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
18,090
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 18,090 in PassMark, which is higher than 64.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 95.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% 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
?
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 88.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
8,533 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 8,533 MHz, which is higher than that of 98% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8533 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-8533 MHz, which is higher than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 1.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Graphics 130V
This processor uses the Intel Arc Graphics 130V integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 86.5% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
7
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 7 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 81.1% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
600 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 600 MHz which is higher than that of 79.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), VVC (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), VVC (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 99.3% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
17 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 17 W which is lower than that of 77.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
17 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 17 W which is lower than that of 76.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
37 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 37 W which is lower than that of 75% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 5 226V vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 49.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,821 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,821 vs 2,558
  • 8.39x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,852 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,852.02 vs 340.075
  • 5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2.5 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 by 4 cores
    2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 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
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • 67.8% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,743 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,743 vs 5,209
  • 4.32x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 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–² Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.9

    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.
    7.8 vs 6.7
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    September 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 49.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,821 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,821 vs 2,558
  • 8.39x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,852 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,852.02 vs 340.075
  • 67.8% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,743 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,743 vs 5,209
  • 45.2% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,229 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,229 vs 1,535
  • 57.7% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,090 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,090 vs 11,469
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2.1 GHz & 4x2.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.1 GHz & 4x2.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2.5 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 by 4 cores
    2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 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
  • 75% smaller process node
    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
  • 4.32x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    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
  • 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
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • 2.67x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8,533 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    8,533 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 2.91x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (136.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    136.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-8533 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-8533 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Graphics 130V vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Graphics 130V vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 71.4% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (600 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    600 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 62.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (17 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    17 W vs 45 W
  • 42.2% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (37 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    37 W vs 64 W
  • 62.2% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (17 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    17 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 4.04x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 5 226V is more expensive than the average processor (£1,010 vs £250).
    £1,010 vs £250
  • 75% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 8% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 5 226V has worse value for money than the average processor (6.75 vs 7.3).
    6.75 vs 7.29
  • 70.8% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (7 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    7 vs 24
  • 7 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (21 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    21 vs 28
  • 4.04x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 5 226V is more expensive than the average processor (£1,010 vs £250).
    £1,010 vs £250
  • 8% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 5 226V has worse value for money than the average processor (6.75 vs 7.3).
    6.75 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 7 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (21 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    21 vs 28
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 75% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 70.8% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (7 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    7 vs 24

Video reviews

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

8.0
Team Pandory
≈ estimated
22/07/2026
Gaming benchmarks · 21 games on a mini PC
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 226V handles most modern games well at 1080p, though some titles like Tekken 8 disappoint.
8.0
Vimal Chintapatla
≈ estimated
17/01/2025
Unboxing and review · gaming, AI features and battery tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 226V is a solid choice for everyday work and light gaming, but battery life drops under heavy use.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core Ultra 5 226V

  • Exceptional power efficiency and battery life for thin-and-light laptops
  • Strong single-core performance that feels snappy for office tasks
  • Integrated Arc Graphics 130V provides impressive iGPU gaming for its class
  • Excellent thermal management with cool and silent operation
  • Robust AI capabilities with a 40 TOPS NPU for AI-enhanced applications
  • Support for high-speed LPDDR5x-8533 on-package memory

What customers don't like about Intel Core Ultra 5 226V

  • Weak multi-core performance compared to competitors and previous generations
  • Lack of hyper-threading results in fewer threads for heavy multitasking
  • Small 8MB L3 cache compared to higher-tier Ultra 7 and 9 models
  • Struggles with demanding AAA games at 1080p resolution
  • Poor value comparison; often outperformed by similarly priced or cheaper AMD Ryzen alternatives
  • Fixed on-package RAM (16GB for this specific model) limits future upgradability

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 226V is a 3nm Lunar Lake SoC designed for slim laptops and tablets, featuring 8 cores and 8 threads (4 Lion Cove P-cores up to 4.5 GHz and 4 Skymont E-cores up to 3.5 GHz) without hyper-threading. It is characterised by its 17W base TDP (37W PL2 turbo), integrated 16 GB LPDDR5x-8533 RAM, and an Intel Arc 130V iGPU with 7 Xe-cores. Its primary advantages include exceptional power efficiency, a dedicated 40 TOPS 'AI Boost' NPU for advanced AI tasks, and a fast integrated graphics solution. However, notable drawbacks include the non-replaceable 16 GB on-package memory which limits future upgrades and a relatively small 8 MB L3 cache compared to higher-tier Series 2 models.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 5 226V 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 226V and other processors

No results found