PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core Ultra 5 225

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.1% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $160 less on MSRP ($240 MSRP vs $400 MSRP).
✅Delivers 68.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.7 vs 76.8 PassMark/$ ($240 MSRP vs $400 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (17,020 vs 18,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Platinum 8260, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.

Xeon Platinum 8260

2019

Why buy it

✅+8.7% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+78.8% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 48 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 225 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 76.8 vs 129.7 PassMark/$ ($400 MSRP vs $240 MSRP).
❌153.8% higher power demand at 165W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 225 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 225 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 5 225

2025

Xeon Platinum 8260

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.1% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $160 less on MSRP ($240 MSRP vs $400 MSRP).
✅Delivers 68.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.7 vs 76.8 PassMark/$ ($240 MSRP vs $400 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+8.7% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+78.8% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 48 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (17,020 vs 18,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Platinum 8260, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 225 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 76.8 vs 129.7 PassMark/$ ($400 MSRP vs $240 MSRP).
❌153.8% higher power demand at 165W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 225 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 225 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 5 225 better than Xeon Platinum 8260?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon Platinum 8260 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 5 225 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8260 is the better fit. You are getting 8.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 78.8% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core Ultra 5 225 is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 5 225 is $160 cheaper on MSRP at $240 MSRP versus $400 MSRP, and it gives you a 11.1% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon Platinum 8260 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 8.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. It is also 68.9% better value on MSRP (129.7 vs 76.8 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core Ultra 5 225 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2019) and a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core Ultra 5 225 Benchmark Check

Xeon Platinum 8260 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon Platinum 8260
1080p
low	256 FPS	194 FPS
medium	244 FPS	158 FPS
high	208 FPS	127 FPS
ultra	176 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	219 FPS	158 FPS
medium	187 FPS	123 FPS
high	154 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	133 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	150 FPS	72 FPS
medium	127 FPS	60 FPS
high	99 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	86 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225 Open Xeon Platinum 8260

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon Platinum 8260
1080p
low	603 FPS	423 FPS
medium	512 FPS	368 FPS
high	421 FPS	300 FPS
ultra	378 FPS	247 FPS
1440p
low	501 FPS	365 FPS
medium	441 FPS	321 FPS
high	372 FPS	264 FPS
ultra	319 FPS	210 FPS
4K
low	301 FPS	228 FPS
medium	266 FPS	202 FPS
high	248 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	218 FPS	146 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225 Open Xeon Platinum 8260

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon Platinum 8260
1080p
low	778 FPS	768 FPS
medium	680 FPS	649 FPS
high	609 FPS	600 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	530 FPS
1440p
low	725 FPS	573 FPS
medium	588 FPS	467 FPS
high	515 FPS	425 FPS
ultra	439 FPS	372 FPS
4K
low	504 FPS	411 FPS
medium	422 FPS	321 FPS
high	377 FPS	286 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	232 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225 Open Xeon Platinum 8260

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon Platinum 8260
1080p
low	778 FPS	768 FPS
medium	778 FPS	768 FPS
high	777 FPS	753 FPS
ultra	699 FPS	655 FPS
1440p
low	778 FPS	752 FPS
medium	716 FPS	659 FPS
high	623 FPS	566 FPS
ultra	547 FPS	486 FPS
4K
low	560 FPS	542 FPS
medium	510 FPS	483 FPS
high	457 FPS	424 FPS
ultra	402 FPS	366 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225 Open Xeon Platinum 8260

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 5 225 and Xeon Platinum 8260

Core Ultra 5 225

The Core Ultra 5 225 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 10 cores and 10 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 31,137 points. Launch price was $246.

Xeon Platinum 8260

The Xeon Platinum 8260 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 December 2018 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake-SP (2018) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 35.75 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 165 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 30,720 points. Launch price was $4,702.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 5 225 packs 10 cores / 10 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8260 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8260 has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 225 versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8260 — a 22.7% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 225 (base: 3.3 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 225 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8260 uses Cascade Lake-SP (2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 5 225 scores 31,137 against the Xeon Platinum 8260's 30,720 — a 1.3% lead for the Core Ultra 5 225. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 17,020 vs 18,500 (8.3% advantage for the Xeon Platinum 8260). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,653 vs 1,190, a 76.1% lead for the Core Ultra 5 225 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 13,028 vs 6,946 (60.9% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 225). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 225 vs 35.75 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8260.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon Platinum 8260
Cores / Threads	10 / 10	24 / 48+140%
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+26%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	3.3 GHz+38%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	35.75 MB (total)+79%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-79%	14 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Cascade Lake-SP (2018)
PassMark	31,137+1%	30,720
Cinebench R23 Multi	17,020	18,500+9%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,653+123%	1,190
Geekbench 6 Multi	13,028+88%	6,946

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 225 uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8260 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 5 225 versus DDR4-2933 on the Xeon Platinum 8260 — the Core Ultra 5 225 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon Platinum 8260 supports up to 1024 GB of RAM compared to 256 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 5 225) vs 6 (Xeon Platinum 8260). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 5 225) vs 48 (Xeon Platinum 8260) — the Xeon Platinum 8260 offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 5 225) and C621,Lewisburg (Xeon Platinum 8260).

Feature	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon Platinum 8260
Socket	LGA1851	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400+25%	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB	1024 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	48+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Platinum 8260 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d, EPT virtualization. The Core Ultra 5 225 includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics (2 Xe-cores)), while the Xeon Platinum 8260 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 5 225 targets Mainstream Desktop / Efficiency, Xeon Platinum 8260 targets Server / Workstation. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 5 225 rivals Ryzen 5 8600G; Xeon Platinum 8260 rivals Xeon Gold 6248R.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon Platinum 8260
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel Arc Graphics (2 Xe-cores)	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Mainstream Desktop / Efficiency	Server / Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 5 225 launched at $240 MSRP, while the Xeon Platinum 8260 debuted at $400. On MSRP ($240 vs $400), the Core Ultra 5 225 is $160 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 5 225 delivers 129.7 pts/$ vs 76.8 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8260 — making the Core Ultra 5 225 the 51.3% better value option.