Reddit Verdict: Core Ultra 5 225 Stuck in No Man's Land

ah another one of these 'mid range bad' videos, thats a hard pass

There's been little to no improvement (sometimes even regression) over the much cheaper 14400F/14600k, they're too close in price to the 265K (which recently got a price cut), and Ryzen 5's just make a complete joke out of them since they're cheaper while performing better in gaming. i5-14400F=$130, i5-14600k=$164, Ryzen 5 9600X=$185, U5 225F=$220, U5 225=$238.

The cheapest LGA1851 processor is only $40 less than the 265K and it comes with half the cores and a significantly lower clock speed. So yeah, I'd say pretty pointless unless you require the lower TDP.

The mobile Core Ultra 5 225H laptop chip has Arc 130T, which is 7 Xe LPG+ cores. The Core Ultra 225 desktop doesn't, it has 2 Xe LPG cores.

i5/u5 have always been the best option for performance on a 'budget'. Plenty of times I've tuned them up to get top tier performance which sweetens the deal even more.

The desktop 225 has half of even that, just 2 Alchemist LP cores. These are all very different CPUs. If you want a good Arrow Lake iGPU, you'll want to look at the Core Ultra 5 245. It has twice the GPU cores of the 225 and should be close to the 8500G in terms of performance.

2 Xe cores won't get you far. Might as well buy an 8600g if you are after a good igpu in that price point.

KitGuru keep making L videos. Ultra 5 is more than enough even for gaming but somehow this so called 'tech youtuber' fails to realize it. Not everyone is rich enough to buy high end hardware, saying mid end hardware is 'useless' is the same as saying RTX 4060 is useless just because 4090 exists.

At retail price of $230, it's pretty shit deal. For $160 you can get Ryzen 5 9600. You can set it to 9600X speed in 30 seconds using PBO. Even a 14600KF is $180 and outperforms the 225F.

245KF.

go amd. skip intel

Yeah at the new price of the 265K, it's just not worth going lower.

Nope. 225 iGPU is very anemic with only 2 Xe cores. Even 265K only has 4 Xe cores. It could do some very basic light gaming that I would under no circumstances call 'modern'.

Most websites I can find place it similarly to a 1060 so not really up to modern dedicated gaming rig standards but will do in a pinch for most titles at 1080. If you're looking at this as a permanent setup for a gaming pc you're better sacrificing some on the cpu to make room in your budget for virtually any dedicated gpu.

For modern games, I don't think so. It can run many simple games. The iGPU would have a significant advantage for video encoding thanks to Quick Sync.

I've been using this cpu for over a month. Performs great on Delta Force, gears of war reloaded and Madden (all I've played so far). I have a 240mm liquid cooler on it and don't have any problems.

it is alright but the 13600kf or 14600kf would be better and lga 1700 are normally cheaper.

They are pointless because the 265K got a price cut and is now $300. Price the 235 non-K at less than $200 and it will have a point again.

Depends on resolution and the games you play. Also, you'll always have a bottleneck at some point.

AMD is offering a better, more upgradable platform and can be had pretty cheap if you know how to look.

You can maybe run fortnite and gta5 at low with upscaling.

It's okay. It's not good, however it is okay. If you want good integrated graphics. You're going to have to wait for Nova lake, or get panther lake.

For stuff like league of legends or dota it can even handle 1440p 180 fps+ maxed out. Can also handle stuff like Roblox. Triple A games no chance. Competitive shooters (CS, Fortnite, overwatch, paladins) only at low settings. The ultra 200 desktop series integrated graphics (245 and up) is about as good as a 1050ti.

It turns out Google AI misled me. Since the 8600G and 8500G are in a similar price range to the Core 5 Ultra 225, but with much better integrated graphics, I'll most likely buy a new computer with one of those CPUs.

ARL isn't particularly competitive when gaming, and nor for most non-gaming workloads (though there are occasions upon which it does very well against AMD and its 14th gen competitors).

With the introduction of i9, the i5/U5 range started feeling more like the i3/U3 range. Except, they're not getting priced like i3 CPUs used to. Basically CPU shrinkflation.

It's an awesome OC Chip and with pretty good power draw stock (compared to 13./14.gen), so that's far from useless.

ZERO difference with a b580. Kitguru did testing and the 225f and 245k got the exact same fps with the b580.

In a gpu bounded system, intel and amd perform similarly. b580 is even weaker than the 9060xt / 5060ti. 225f is cheaper than 7600x and 9600x. When paired with a b580, 225f is the best choice with best value EVEN IN GAMING.

I'd say to do what you can to stretch to a 265K if possible unless you can get the 245KF for less than half the cost of one.

Both would work fine but 245KF would be better and ideal.

No, I ended up getting the Core Ultra 7 265K + 5070ti.

I would definitely spend the extra money for the 225H over the 225U - the 225H uses a much newer CPU architecture, which is more efficient.

To you maybe, but to me and other people in the scientific community this is a great improvement.

If you're gaming at 1080p maybe, the higher the resolution the less cpu matters.

buy intel forget AMD. Intel cpu heavily discount.

Don't let motherboard sales sway your CPU choice. there's motherboards from both brands on sale.

No. You can maybe play 10 old games with less demanding graphics. Don't expect to play even 10 year old games like Witcher 3 or GTA V, let alone modern titles.

Old games will work I mean older ones from early 2000.

It's really going to depend on the deal. IIRC we're expecting about one more generation out of both LGA1851 and AM5.

2xx have stuttering issues in several games even when supposedly gpu bound because flop architecture.

They are way worse value for gaming than AMD. The current Intel CPU gen is just not good for gaming... you're buying a bad value CPU on a dead socket if you go Intel.