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 230F Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£210PassMark benchmark result:33137N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:LGA1851TDP (Thermal design power):121 W

Intel Core Ultra 5 230F Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.2

Overall score

Score
8.2/ 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 90% of models
Score components

90%

8.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

★Better than 90% of processors
8.2

Technical score

Technical score
8.2/ 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 90% of models
Score components

60%

8.4

Performance

18%

8.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated Graphics

★Better than 90% 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~ £210

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 230F

Technical score
Technical score
8.2/ 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 90% of models
Score components:

60%

8.4

Performance

18%

8.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated Graphics

8.2
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 230F 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%

8.2

Overall score

40%

9.4

Price

8.6
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1851
CPU socket
LGA1851
★ Better than 99% of models
This processor uses the LGA1851 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Chipset
Z890, B860, H810, Q870, W880
Chipset
Z890, B860, H810, Q870, W880
★ Better than 90% of models
This processor supports Z890, B860, H810, Q870, W880 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 90.3% of processors and equal to that of 1% 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
10
N. of physical cores
10
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 10 CPU cores, which is more than 77.1% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
CPU threads
10
CPU threads
10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 10 CPU threads, which is more than 54.4% of processors and equal to 0.5% 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
5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
5 GHz
â–² Better than 80% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5 GHz which is higher than that of 80.3% of processors and equal to that of 5.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 3.4 GHz & 4x 2.9 GHz
CPU base clock speed
6x 3.4 GHz & 4x 2.9 GHz
â–² Better than 87% of models
This processor has a base clock of 6x3.4 GHz & 4x2.9 GHz which is higher than that of 87.4% 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
24 MB
L3 cache
24 MB
â–² Better than 82% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 24 MB which is larger than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.8% of processors.
L2 cache
22 MB
L2 cache
22 MB
★ Better than 94% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 22 MB which is larger than that of 94.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
L1 cache
?
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
6,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
â–² Better than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to 8.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
â–² Better than 88% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 87.5% of processors and equal to 2.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
6,400 MHz
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
6,400 MHz
★ Better than 97% of models
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 97.5% of processors and equal to 1.8% of processors.
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
â–² Better than 89% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89.5% of processors and equal to 8.2% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
Integrated graphics
no
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 87.6% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
121 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
121 W
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 121 W which is higher than that of 92.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Base power (PL1)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 70.1% of processors and equal to that of 16.7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
121 W
Boost power (PL2)
121 W
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 121 W which is higher than that of 80.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% 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
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 5 230F vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 6.87x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    33,177
    ★ Better than 100% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (33,177 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    33,177 vs 4,829
  • 3.13x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    33,137
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (33,137 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    33,137 vs 10,572.5
  • 85.7% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,643
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,643 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,643 vs 2,500
  • 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
  • 8.8x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    22 MB
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (22 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    22 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.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 4 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    10
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 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
  • 30.9% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 5 230F has better value for money than the average processor (8.59 vs 6.6).
    8.59 vs 6.56
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    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 vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1851
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1851 vs FP4).
    LGA1851 vs FP4
  • 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.
  • 6.87x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    33,177
    ★ Better than 100% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (33,177 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    33,177 vs 4,829
  • 3.13x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    33,137
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (33,137 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    33,137 vs 10,572.5
  • 85.7% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,643
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,643 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,643 vs 2,500
  • 4 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    10
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 16.3% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.0 GHz
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.0 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    6 x 3.4 GHz & 4 x 2.9 GHz
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x3.4 GHz & 4x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    6x3.4 GHz & 4x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 2 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    10
    â–² Better than 54% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (10 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    10 vs 8
  • 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
  • 8.8x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    22 MB
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (22 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    22 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.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    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
  • 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
  • 3x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    24 MB
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    24 MB vs 8 MB
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 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
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    24
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 4x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    256 GB
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.18x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    6,400 MHz
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 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)
    DDR5-6400 MHz
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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.
  • 2.02x higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    121 W
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (121 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    121 W vs 60 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    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).
    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
  • 44.4% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 2.69x higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    121 W
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (121 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    121 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • No integrated graphics
    Integrated graphics
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, the average processor does. 87.6% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    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).
    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
  • 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
  • No integrated graphics
    Integrated graphics
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, the average processor does. 87.6% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.02x higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    121 W
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (121 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    121 W vs 60 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 2.69x higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    121 W
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (121 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    121 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °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

P
pcgameshardware.de
08/04/2025
Summary of the review
Core Ultra 5 225F and 235 Review: AMD's competition in the Arrow Lake budget series
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
25/03/2025
Summary of the review
What the small models deliver: Intel Core Ultra 5 235 & 225F (mentioning the 230F performance class)
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
08/05/2025
Summary of the review
Review: Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and 225F vs. AMD Ryzen (Including coverage and performance analysis of the 230F)
(Translated)Show original
T
technologyinsider.nl
27/01/2025
Summary of the review
Intel launches Core Ultra 5 230F exclusively for the Chinese market with a unique heat spreader
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 5 230F

  • Competitive gaming performance that matches the more expensive Core Ultra 5 245K in many titles
  • Strong single-threaded performance for a budget-tier processor, showing improvements over predecessors
  • Excellent power efficiency with a 65W TDP, drawing less power than previous-gen equivalent chips under stress
  • Offers a higher L3 cache (24MB) and better clock speeds compared to the entry-level Core Ultra 5 225 models
  • Support for modern platform standards including PCIe 5.0 and high-speed DDR5 memory up to 6400 MHz
  • Runs relatively cool, reducing the need for expensive high-end liquid or air coolers

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 5 230F

  • Geographically limited availability as it is primarily a China-exclusive SKU
  • Lacks Hyperthreading, which can limit performance in heavy multi-threaded productivity workloads
  • Locked multiplier prevents traditional enthusiast-level overclocking
  • Gaming performance gains over older 13th and 14th Gen chips are sometimes marginal or non-existent
  • Introduction of the new LGA 1851 socket requires a motherboard upgrade from previous generations
  • No integrated graphics, necessitating a dedicated GPU for any display output

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 230F is a desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture and 3nm process, featuring 10 physical cores (6 Performance and 4 Efficiency) and 10 threads, with a max turbo frequency of up to 5.0 GHz. It utilizes the LGA 1851 socket, supports high-speed DDR5-6400 memory, and includes PCIe 5.0 compatibility for modern GPUs and SSDs. Main advantages include a dedicated NPU for AI acceleration (delivering up to 13 TOPS), excellent energy efficiency with a 65W base TDP, and strong single-threaded performance for gaming. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of integrated graphics (indicated by the 'F' suffix), the absence of hyper-threading, and a locked multiplier that prevents traditional overclocking.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 5 230F 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 230F and other processors

No results found