Verdict: Core Ultra 5 235 or Core Ultra 225F – Which Intel chip is better value?
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Core Ultra 5 225F bring a breath of fresh air to the mid-range. Both processors are based on the new Arrow Lake architecture and impress with their modern production, good efficiency and integrated NPU for AI applications. From a performance standpoint, however, the two CPUs are only in the lower mid-range, which should really be reflected in their price, as the two processors are currently still too expensive to arouse customer interest. Their performance is comparable to the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X, which is around $80 cheaper. All-in-all, Intel can currently only appeal to customers via their price.
Nevertheless, both processors are a good choice when it comes to pure performance. During our test, there were no applications that even the small Intel Core Ultra 5 225F couldn't handle. Gaming is also child's play for these processors. Their significantly lower power consumption and easy cooling, which is particularly interesting for compact systems, should be noted as positives. Ultimately, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 delivers the better overall package, which is clearly reflected in its efficiency.
Pros
Cons
Price and availability
Table of Contents
- Verdict: Core Ultra 5 235 or Core Ultra 225F – Which Intel chip is better value?
- Intel Arrow Lake S processors compared
- Asus TUF Gaming Z890-PLUS Wi-Fi serves as a platform
- Processor benchmarks
- Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Intel Core Ultra 5 225F during the Cinebench R15 Multi Loop
- Synthetic benchmarks and application performance
- Gaming benchmarks
- Energy requirement
- Notebookcheck total rating
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F belong to the latest generation of Intel processors based on the Meteor Lake architecture. Both chips combine powerful P and efficient E cores with integrated AI acceleration via a dedicated NPU (Neural Processing Unit). Just like the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is designed for energy efficiency, which is reflected in their low power limits. Both processors are in the 65-watt class and can be operated at up to 121 watts for short periods. This makes the frugal processors primarily suitable for very compact PC systems. They also don't require powerful cooling. As we already know, the F suffix indicates that these are processors without an iGPU.
Both processors rely on modern production technology and offer improved energy efficiency, high multitasking capabilities and support for current standards such as DDR5 and PCIe 5.0.
We used the following system for our benchmarks and tests:
- Streacom BC1 V2 Open Benchtable
- Intel Core Ultra 5 235, Intel Core Ultra 5 225F
- Asus TUF Gaming Z890-PLUS Wi-Fi, BIOS: 2001
- Custom Loop water cooling (pump: Watercool WCP D5, radiator: EK MO-RA3 420 Pro)
- Palit GeForce RTX 4090 GameRock OC
- EVGA SuperNOVA P+ 1600W
- G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo DDR5-6000 2x 16 GB, EXPO (DDR5-6000 CL30-38-38-96)
- Kingston KC3000 2 TB, M.2 2280 (OS + synthetic benchmarks)
- Intel SSD DC P4618 - 6.4 TB (games)
- Microsoft Windows 11 Professional 64-bit (version 24H2)
Intel Arrow Lake S processors compared
| Model | Cores / Threads |
P-core clock / Turbo | E-core clock / Turbo | TBMT 3.0 | Cache L2 | Intel Smart Cache | iGPU (4 Xe cores) | NPU | PBP | MTP | Price (MRSP) |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | 24 (8P + 16E) /24 | 3.7 GHz / 5.5 GHz | 3.2 GHz / 4.6 GHz | 5.6 GHz | 40 MB | 36 MB | 2.0 GHz | 13 TOPS | 125 watts | 250 watts | $589 |
| Intel Core Ultra 7 265K | 20 (8P + 12E) /20 | 3.9 GHz / 5.4 GHz | 3.3 GHz / 4.6 GHz | 5.6 GHz | 36 MB | 30 MB | 2.0 GHz | 13 TOPS | 125 watts | 250 watts | $394 |
| Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF | 20 (8P + 12E) /20 | 3.9 GHz / 5.4 GHz | 3.3 GHz / 4.6 GHz | 5.6 GHz | 36 MB | 30 MB | - | 13 TOPS | 125 watts | 250 watts | $379 |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 245K | 14 (6P + 8E) /14 | 3.9 GHz / 5.4 GHz | 4.2 GHz / 5.2 GHz | 5.2 GHz | 26 MB | 24 MB | 1.9 GHz | 13 TOPS | 125 watts | 159 watts | $309 |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF | 14 (6P + 8E) /14 | 3.9 GHz / 5.4 GHz | 4.2 GHz / 5.2 GHz | 5.2 GHz | 26 MB | 24 MB | - | 13 TOPS | 125 watts | 159 watts | $294 |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 235 | 14 (6P + 8E) /14 | 3.4 GHz / 5.0 GHz | 2.9 GHz / 4.4 GHz | 5.0 GHz | 26 MB | 24 MB | 2.0 GHz | 13 TOPS | 65 watts | 121 watts | $247 |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 225F | 14 (6P + 4E) /10 | 3.3 GHz / 4.9 GHz | 2.7 GHz / 4.4 GHz | 4.9 GHz | 22 MB | 20 MB | - | 13 TOPS | 65 watts | 121 watts | $221 |
Asus TUF Gaming Z890-PLUS Wi-Fi serves as a platform
As with our review of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, we used the Asus TUF Gaming Z890-PLUS Wi-Fi motherboard for this test, too. At the time of testing, the latest BIOS was installed. Visually, the TUF Gaming Z890-PLUS Wi-Fi fits seamlessly into the TUF series: a predominantly black design, accentuated by a few silver elements, but without RGB lighting on the front. A few LEDs on the back provide some subtle lighting effects. The mainboard supports DDR5 RAM with clock rates of up to 9,066 MT/s and a maximum capacity of 256 GB when fully populated. A look at the QVL list is recommended to ensure compatibility. In terms of connectivity, the board offers a variety of USB 3 ports, a USB 4.0 port, 2.5G LAN and support for the Wi-Fi 7 standard. Large heat sinks provide the necessary heat dissipation. Useful: The upper SSD cooler can be removed without the need for any tools, and the Q-release allows the graphics card to be removed quickly—only the lower heat sink is screwed in.
The Asus TUF Gaming Z890-PLUS Wi-Fi is currently priced at around $320 (Amazon).
Testing conditions
We carried out all performance tests using the energy profile high performance. We activated the Intel default settings in the BIOS so that the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F were operated within the specifications defined by the manufacturer. A custom loop water cooling system was used for cooling, which we already used in previous CPU performance tests in the same configuration.
Processor benchmarks
Let's take a look at the CPU performance of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F: Both processors offer solid performance, but are on par with the Intel Core i5-13600K. With 6 performance and 8 efficiency cores, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has a total 14 physical cores, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has a total of 10 with its 6 performance and 4 efficiency cores. Hyperthreading is no longer used in the new Arrow Lake-S models. The two Ultra Core 5 processors don't need to fear direct comparison with AMD or their in-house rivals. Intel manages to get impressive performance out of the two processors thanks to their lower power consumption.
Intel Core Ultra 5 235
Intel Core Ultra 5 225F
* ... smaller is better
Cinebench results with the Intel Core Ultra 5 235
Cinebench results with the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F
Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Intel Core Ultra 5 225F during the Cinebench R15 Multi Loop
Both processors mastered the Cinebench R15 continuous loop without significant limitations. Under continuous load, their power consumption dropped, as intended, to the PL1 value (65 watts), which was maintained without any issues.
CPU metrics during the Cinebench R15 loop
Synthetic benchmarks and application performance
During everyday use, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Core Ultra 5 225F deliver solid performance that is comparable to other processors in the same segment. There will hardly be any noticeable differences during normal use—even if they tended to be at the lower end of the test field during the benchmarks. As expected, our test samples ranked just behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, which underpins the subjectively small difference in performance between the other processors.
* ... smaller is better
| Performance Rating - Percent | |
| AMD Ryzen 5 9600X | |
| Intel Core i9-14900K | |
| Intel Core i5-14600K | |
| Intel Core i7-13700K | |
| AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D | |
| AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D | |
| AMD Ryzen 9 7950X | |
| Intel Core i7-13700 | |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | |
| Intel Core i7-12700 | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 245K | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 235 | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 225F | |
| Intel Core i5-13400 | |
NPU performance
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Core Ultra 5 225F have an integrated Neural Processing Unit (NPU) that is specially designed for AI applications. This NPU is the same as the variant already used in Meteor Lake processors for mobile devices and offers a computing power of up to 13 TOPS. Despite their similar architecture, the desktop models achieve better results thanks to higher performance reserves. Compared to modern graphics cards, on the other hand, NPUs remain significantly inferior. The role they will play in everyday life in the future will become clear with increasing software support.
| UL Procyon for Windows / Overall Score Integer NPU | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 235 | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 225F | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 245K | |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 185H | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 125H | |
| Intel Core Ultra 7 155H | |
Gaming benchmarks
Unfortunately, the performance of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Intel Core Ultra 5 225F that we observed in the CPU benchmarks couldn't be fully transferred to the field of gaming. At the CPU limit of the games we tested, both processors showed a similarly weak performance as the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K or the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. In the second scenario, at 2,160p with maximum details (so at the GPU limit), the processors' performance moved closer together. There shouldn't be any noticeable difference in performance when using the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 or the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F.
Performance comparison at CPU limit
| Performance Rating - Percent | |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D | |
| AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D | |
| Intel Core i9-14900K | |
| AMD Ryzen 5 9600X | |
| AMD Ryzen 9 7950X | |
| AMD Ryzen 5 7600X | |
| Intel Core i9-13900K | |
| Intel Core i5-14600K | |
| Intel Core i7-13700K | |
| Intel Core i7-13700 | |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 235 | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 245K | |
| Intel Core i7-12700 | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 225F | |
| Intel Core i5-13400 | |
| Intel Core i5-12400F | |
Performance comparison at GPU limit
| Performance Rating - Percent | |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D | |
| AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D | |
| Intel Core i9-14900K | |
| Intel Core i5-14600K | |
| AMD Ryzen 9 7950X | |
| AMD Ryzen 5 9600X | |
| AMD Ryzen 5 7600X | |
| Intel Core i9-13900K | |
| Intel Core i7-13700K | |
| Intel Core i7-13700 | |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 235 | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 245K | |
| Intel Core i7-12700 | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 225F | |
| Intel Core i5-13400 | |
| Intel Core i5-12400F | |
Intel Core Ultra 5 235 with Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090
Intel Core Ultra 5 225F with Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090
Energy requirement
When it comes to power consumption, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Core Ultra 5 225F show a clear improvement compared to previous generations. Despite their decent CPU performance, their energy consumption remains moderate. Both processors operate at 65 watts under continuous load, although 121 watts are available in Turbo mode. Conversely, this also means better energy efficiency for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 compared to the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F, as you can see from our results. Cooling the two processors isn't a major challenge.
Intel Core Ultra 5 235
Efficiency overview
| Power Consumption / Cinebench R15 Multi (external Monitor) | |
| Intel Core i9-14900K | |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | |
| Intel Core i7-13700 | |
| Intel Core i7-13700K | |
| Intel Core i5-14600K | |
| Intel Core i7-12700 | |
| AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 245K | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 235 | |
| AMD Ryzen 5 7600X | |
| AMD Ryzen 5 9600X | |
| AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D | |
| Intel Core i5-13400 | |
| Intel Core i5-12400F | |
| Intel Core Ultra 5 225F | |
* ... smaller is better
Power consumption with external monitor
Power consumption with external monitor
Notebookcheck total rating
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Core Ultra 5 225F impress with their modern architecture, good efficiency and solid everyday performance. Their integrated NPU offers potential for AI applications, but is still limited in practice. Thanks to their lower power consumption and simple cooling, both CPUs are particularly efficient—ideal for very compact yet powerful systems.
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. We never accept compensation or payment in return for our reviews. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
