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 5 235 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£210PassMark multi-core score:39968N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:LGA1851TDP (Thermal design power):121 W

Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 7 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core Ultra 5 235
8.0/10

Overall score

Score
8.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 95% of models
Score components

40%

8.7

Technical score

25%

7.2

Reviews score

25%

8.0

List score

10%

?

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

★Better than 95% of processors
8.4

Value for money

Value for money
8.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 96% of models
Score components

70%

8.0

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

★Better than 96%
8.7

Technical score

Technical score
8.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 97% of models
Score components

60%

9.0

Performance

18%

8.3

Architecture

10%

9.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

★Better than 97%
7.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 59% of models

80%

6.9

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 2 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.
▼Worse than 59%
8.0

List score

List score
8.0/ 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 (1)
List score: in 1 of 79 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • intel-core-ultra-5-235
intel-core-ultra-5-235
Where to buy
    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.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core Ultra 5 235

Based on 5 · 2

Reviewers like the low power draw and decent integrated graphics, but agree it falls short for gaming.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 5 235

Technical score
Technical score
8.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 97% of models
Score components:

60%

9.0

Performance

18%

8.3

Architecture

10%

9.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

8.7
Reviews score
7.2
List score
8.0
Value for money
Value for money
8.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 96% of models
Score components:

70%

8.0

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

8.4
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1851
This processor uses the LGA1851 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
Chipset
Z890, B860, H810, Q870, W880
This processor supports Z890, B860, H810, Q870, W880 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 90.6% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
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
14
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 14 CPU threads, which is more than 67.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5 GHz which is higher than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 3.4 GHz & 8x 2.9 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x3.4 GHz & 8x2.9 GHz which is higher than that of 93.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
39,968
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 39,968 in PassMark, which is higher than 92.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
24 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 24 MB which is larger than that of 80.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
L2 cache
26 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 26 MB which is larger than that of 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
L1 cache
1,152 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,152 KB which is larger than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
6,400 MHz
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
192 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 82.2% of processors and equal to 6.8% 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 24EU
This processor uses the Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 84% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
4
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 4 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 90.1% of processors and equal to 2.8% 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
AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 59.6% of processors and equal to 1.5% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
121 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 121 W which is higher than that of 91.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
121 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 121 W which is higher than that of 76.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% 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
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.48x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (39,968 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    39,968 vs 11,469
  • 2.55x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,293 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,293 vs 5,209
  • 76.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,512 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,512 vs 2,558
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 3.04x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (8,518 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    8,518 vs 2,804.5
  • 71.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,634 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,634 vs 1,535
  • 8.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (26 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    26 MB vs 3 MB
  • 15.6% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has better value for money than the average processor (8.42 vs 7.3).
    8.42 vs 7.29
  • 7.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.2/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models

    80%

    6.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 2 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.
    7.2 vs 6.7
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1851 vs FP5).
    LGA1851 vs FP5
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3.48x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (39,968 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    39,968 vs 11,469
  • 2.55x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,293 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,293 vs 5,209
  • 76.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,512 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,512 vs 2,558
  • 3.04x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (8,518 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    8,518 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • 71.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,634 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,634 vs 1,535
  • 62.2% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (795 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    795 vs 490
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x3.4 GHz & 8x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x3.4 GHz & 8x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.0 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 6 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (14 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    14 vs 8
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 8.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (26 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    26 MB vs 3 MB
  • 6x more L2 per 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
    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
    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
  • 3x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,152 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,152 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2.67x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    24 MB vs 9 MB
  • 3.6x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 2.18x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (102.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 3x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    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
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU 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
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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.
  • 89.1% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (121 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    121 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    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
  • 37.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2.69x higher TDP
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 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.
  • 37.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 89.1% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (121 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    121 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    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
    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
    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

8.0
Digital David
≈ estimated
11/04/2025
Hands-on review · installation, benchmarks and temperature tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a solid, efficient mid-range chip with good value for budget gaming, though it doesn't redefine its segment.
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
07/05/2025
Benchmark review · Mid-range CPUs
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a mid-range chip with good efficiency and solid everyday speed, though it trails AMD's Ryzen 5 9600X in several tests.
5.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
25/03/2025
Lab test · Non-K Arrow Lake
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 65W chip with six performance and eight efficiency cores, strong in application work but far behind AMD's X3D chips in games.
6.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
20/05/2025
Lab test · Desktop Arrow Lake chips
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and 225F beat the Core i5-14400F in most productivity tests, with the 235 pulling ahead through more cores and integrated graphics.
7.0
smartworld.it
≈ estimated
10/06/2025
Benchmark test · Mid-range CPUs
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a power-efficient mid-range chip that is about 26% faster than the Core i5-14400F, but lags behind AMD in games.
4.0
tweakers.net
≈ estimated
09/05/2025
Lab test · Power efficiency
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 uses little power, finishing a full Cinebench run on about 6Wh, but it is slow by today's standards and suits low-power home servers.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core Ultra 5 235

  • High energy efficiency with a low power draw (65W TDP), making it easy to cool and suitable for compact builds.
  • Solid mid-range multi-core performance for productivity and multitasking, featuring 14 physical cores.
  • Features a dedicated NPU for accelerating AI-based applications.
  • Includes an integrated Arc GPU based on the Alchemist architecture, which is beneficial for light video editing and moderate gaming.
  • Support for modern standards including DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5.
  • Comes with a retail box that includes a stock cooler, providing better value for budget builders.

What customers don't like about Intel Core Ultra 5 235

  • Price-to-performance ratio is often criticized, as it can be more expensive than similar AMD Ryzen 5 chips.
  • Performance regressions in certain areas; lacks hyperthreading and may show higher latency compared to previous 13th/14th gen processors.
  • Limited upgrade path and added cost due to the requirement of a new LGA1851 socket motherboard and DDR5 RAM.
  • Locked multiplier prevents manual overclocking to boost performance.
  • Gaming performance is often described as merely 'on par' with older i5 models like the 13600K/14600K rather than a significant improvement.

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a desktop processor from the Arrow Lake-S series featuring 14 cores (6 Performance and 8 Efficient) and 14 threads with a max turbo frequency of 5.0 GHz. Built on a 3nm process for the LGA1851 socket, it includes 24 MB of L3 cache, a 65W base TDP, and a dedicated NPU delivering 13 TOPS for AI tasks. Its main advantages include excellent power efficiency, support for PCIe 5.0 and DDR5-6400 memory, and integrated Intel Graphics with 4 Xe cores. However, notable drawbacks include the lack of Hyper-Threading support, no compatibility with older DDR4 RAM, and performance that is largely comparable to previous-generation mid-range chips like the i5-13600K despite being on a newer platform.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 5 235 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 5 235 and other processors

No results found