Intel Core Ultra 5 225F Gaming Benchmarks: How It Compares to Ryzen and Older Intel CPUs

Compare 12 popular games at 1080p on the Core Ultra 5 225F to older Intel and AMD Ryzen CPUs for gamers.

Hardware by Mitsuba Miyu on Dec 14, 2025

A product that almost everyone didn't want gets attention for the first time. It may have seemed strange, but in the end, interest won. Intel's Core Ultra 5 225F processor has been available for almost a year.

Still, most people, including both fans and budget makers, haven't paid much attention to it. It started with almost no demand, excitement, or attention as Intel's cheapest choice with a locked Core Ultra.

Intel, Core Ultra 5 225F Gaming Benchmarks, How It Compares to Ryzen, Older Intel CPUs, NoobFeed

Since the price is much lower now than when it first came out, the main question is: what is the deal with the Core Ultra 5 225F, and is it good for gaming today?

Core Ultra 5 225F Overview and Specifications

Intel's locked non-K Core Ultra range included the Core Ultra 5 225F when it came out. It has 10 cores total, 6P-cores and 4E-cores, and no hyperthreading. The 225F has the same number of P-cores as higher-level Core Ultra parts like the 245K, but it runs them at lower speeds.

Base clocks are 21% slower, and boost clocks are 6% slower. The E-core count drops from 8 to 4, which is half as many, and their clock speeds are lowered, especially at base frequency.

These changes significantly reduce power needs. There is a big drop in TDP. The base power level drops from 125W to 65W, and the highest turbo power level drops from 159W to 121W.

The smart cache now has 4MB less space, bringing the total to 20MB. Based on these specs, the Core Ultra chip should be more efficient and cheaper, but it might also be slower.

Pricing History and Market Position

When the Core Ultra 5 225F first came out, it had an MSRP of $221, but it cost much more in real life, around $250. That first price made it very unappealing, especially given the strong competition at the time.

The price dropped slowly over the months. It first fell to about $230, then to $220, and finally to $200. It stayed at $160 by early fall, and it's still there.

The 225F seems like a better deal at $160. It works with older Intel CPUs and other mid-range CPUs. But success, not just price, determines value, and that's where things get more difficult.

Testing Focus and Methodology

Testing focuses on gaming performance and provides a brief overview of productivity standards for context, rather than a full in-depth report. More has already been said about the higher-end Core Ultra processors.

Here, the real interest is in how well this budget-focused model works in current games, where single-core efficiency, latency, and sustained clocks are most important.

Productivity Performance

Core Ultra 5 225F scores 123 points in Cinebench R24 single-core tests, putting it about on par with several other midrange CPUs.

That result might seem okay at first, but it's actually 10% behind the 245K, which isn't even a good gaming CPU, and it's slower than other game CPUs.

The multi-core performance is much more disappointing. The 225F struggles to stand out because it's a little slower than other six-core computers. Since the Core Ultra lineup has often been productive, this outcome is especially frustrating.

In 7-Zip tests, the trend keeps going. The compression performance is only as good as older CPUs, and the decoding performance is much worse, lagging behind other processors. The shader performance results are just okay and about the same as competitors with six cores.

Intel, Core Ultra 5 225F Gaming Benchmarks, How It Compares to Ryzen, Older Intel CPUs, NoobFeed

Gaming Performance Analysis

Rainbow Six Siege

Rainbow Six Siege is where gaming standards start. The average frame rates there are over 300 fps. That may sound like a lot when you only look at it by itself, but relative success shows something else entirely.

The 225F is far behind because newer budget CPUs have only small advantages, and the competition has much better frame rates.

Marvel Rivals

Results improve a bit in Marvel Rivals, but the 225F is still disappointing. Newer CPUs are still much better than older ones, and the performance of newer ones on the market is still much better than earlier ones.

Assassin's Creed Shadows

In this GPU-intensive game, speed differences across modern CPUs are small. Still, the 225F doesn't stand out and works the same as much older choices.

Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered

The 225F gets 162 fps on medium settings, which is only a small gain over older CPUs and lags behind many competitors. At higher settings, the gap gets smaller, but it never really gets better.

Cyberpunk 2077 Phantom Liberty

Here, the results are very depressing. Faster performance over older CPUs is not very noticeable, and other processors outperform them by a large margin, especially in high-quality settings that use ray tracing.

Counter-Strike 2

Another CPU-heavy game gets the same bad results. The 225F offers only minor improvements over older parts, and other CPUs still have a significant lead.

Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine 2

This title points out serious CPU problems, and even though the 225F avoids disaster, it still only slightly outperforms older CPUs and is slower than other choices.

Intel, Core Ultra 5 225F Gaming Benchmarks, How It Compares to Ryzen, Older Intel CPUs, NoobFeed

The Last of Us Part II Remastered

In this case, the 225F does a decent job; it matches some lower-priced CPUs and beats others that are older. Still, higher-tier computers are clearly better.

Marvel's Spider-Man 2

Performance varies widely depending on the setting. The 225F does a great job at medium quality, performing on par with more expensive CPUs and providing one of its best performances. But when CPU needs rise due to ray tracing, a consistent frame rate is no longer possible, and rivals get ahead again.

Mafia: The Old Country

When the CPU is limited, the 225F again falls behind other computers. These flaws are harder to see in GPU-limited settings, but the overall picture remains the same.

ACC

This one gets especially bad results; the 225F barely outperforms older CPUs, while the competition offers much higher frame rates.

Baldur's Gate 3

This game is especially unfair to the 225F; in some cases, it performs worse than even older, cheaper CPUs.

Average Performance Over 12 Games

The Core Ultra 5 225F delivers just 7% to 9% better performance at 1080p than older budget CPUs, on a 12-game average, depending on the quality settings.

Competing processors beat it by clear scores, often by double-digit percentages. Even at $160, this level of speed is hard to explain for a modern CPU.

Intel, Core Ultra 5 225F Gaming Benchmarks, How It Compares to Ryzen, Older Intel CPUs, NoobFeed

Final Thoughts

The Core Ultra 5 225F hasn't aged well. It is mostly forgotten now because of poor launch pricing, limited demand, and disappointing results. It's still hard to sell, even though the prices are a lot lower.

It doesn't give people who already have the platform a clear way to upgrade, and it struggles to compete with other options that offer faster gaming and greater value over time.

For gamers, frame rates, consistency, and overall speed are better with competing processors. The 225F best meets alternatives at the same price, but it often falls behind. This is for users who care about productivity. It is still hard to suggest unless the price goes down a lot.

The Core Ultra 5 225F is another example of how aggressive pricing and clear performance benefits are necessary in today's highly competitive CPU market.

Also, check our other Intel articles below: