CPU Comparison
Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA is a 14-core mid-cycle refresh desktop processor on the B0 stepping of Arrow Lake-S, combining 6 Lion Cove P-cores and 8 Skymont E-cores with a 35W PL1 for OEM-focused power-efficient configurations.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
14 threads handle productivity workloads well, though sustained multi-core tasks run slower at 35W PL1 than at 65W.
Solid multi-threaded performance from 14 cores, though the 65W power limit reduces sustained throughput compared to 125W siblings.
Gaming
With a discrete GPU, delivers strong gaming performance. The 35W PL1 may slightly reduce 1% lows in CPU-heavy titles compared to the 65W 235.
Handles 1080p gaming adequately when paired with a mid-range discrete GPU, but the lower clocks compared to K-series parts limit frame rates in CPU-bound titles.
Virtualization
14 threads provide reasonable VM capacity, but power constraints limit sustained multi-VM performance.
Efficiency
Strong efficiency at the 35W PL1 level, making it appealing for systems that prioritize low sustained power draw.
Excellent performance-per-watt thanks to the TSMC 3nm compute tile and conservative power limits.
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- NPU 3 provides 13 TOPS for sustained AI tasks
- 24EU Xe-LPG contributes 6 TOPS from the GPU
- Total combined AI performance is 27 TOPS
- Adequate for AI-assisted features but below the 40+ TOPS Copilot+ threshold
- 13 TOPS NPU 3 for lightweight AI tasks
- Combined 29 TOPS with CPU and GPU contributions
- Suitable for background AI features like noise cancellation and image enhancement
- Not designed for training or heavy inference workloads
Content Creation
Gaming
- Requires discrete GPU for meaningful gaming performance
- Lion Cove IPC ensures strong per-frame performance
- 35W PL1 may cause minor performance dips in CPU-bound scenarios
- 5.0 GHz boost clock matches the standard 235
- 5.1 GHz boost is lower than the 245KF's 5.2 GHz
- Pairs well with GPUs up to RTX 4060 class without bottlenecking
- E-Cores contribute meaningfully in modern game engines
- iGPU can handle older or less demanding titles at low settings
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
Pros
- B0 stepping likely offers improved silicon quality over initial A0 release
- 14 cores at 35W PL1 provides excellent performance-per-watt at base power
- 24EU Xe-LPG is more capable than the 16EU in lower-tier models
- Full feature set including vPro, TME, SIPP, and Thread Director
- Official $269 pricing provides clear value positioning
Cons
- 35W PL1 limits sustained performance versus the standard 235
- Launches six months after the 235 with minimal architectural changes
- Primarily targeted at OEMs, so retail availability may be limited
- No Hyper-Threading reduces thread density
- At $269, it is more expensive than the original 235's $259 launch price
Pros
- Excellent power efficiency at 65W TDP
- Modern 3nm architecture with strong IPC
- Capable Arc Xe-LPG integrated graphics
- NPU 3 for AI features
- ECC memory support
- Lower cooling requirements than K-series
Cons
- Locked multiplier prevents CPU overclocking
- Lower boost clock than 245KF limits peak performance
- 65W power limit reduces sustained multi-thread throughput
- No Hyper-Threading on P-Cores
- LGA 1851 is a new platform with early-adopter costs
Competitors & Alternatives
Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA
- AMD Ryzen 7 9700XRival
Mid-Range Desktop
- AMD Ryzen 7 9700Rival
Budget 8-Core Desktop
- Compare head-to-headIntel Core Ultra 5 235Rival
Standard Power Desktop
- AMD Ryzen 5 9600XRival
Value Desktop
- Compare head-to-headIntel Core Ultra 7 265Rival
Upper Mid-Range Desktop
Significantly cheaper 10-core option if you do not need the extra E-cores.
Compare head-to-headIf the T-series power profile appeals but you need more P-cores for heavier workloads.
Compare head-to-head
Intel Core Ultra 5 245
- AMD Ryzen 5 9600XRival
Mainstream Desktop
- AMD Ryzen 5 7600Rival
Value Desktop
- AMD Ryzen 7 9700XRival
Upper Mainstream
- Compare head-to-headIntel Core i5-14400Rival
Previous Generation
- AMD Ryzen 5 8600GRival
Desktop with iGPU
Unlocked multiplier and higher clocks for $24 more if you plan to overclock.
Compare head-to-headSignificantly more cores and higher clocks for $184 if you don't need integrated graphics.
Compare head-to-head
Our Verdict on Each
A refined 14-core Arrow Lake-S processor with an updated stepping and reduced PL1 that serves OEM needs well, though DIY builders should consider whether the standard 235 better fits their use case.
Best for: Found in an OEM pre-built system where the integrator has matched the 35W PL1 to an appropriate thermal solution
Read the full reviewA sensible locked Arrow Lake chip that trades peak frequency for a modest 65W power envelope, making it ideal for small form factor builds and users who prioritize efficiency over overclocking headroom.
Best for: Building a compact, quiet, power-efficient desktop with modern features like NPU and PCIe 5.0 without paying K-series prices.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA or Intel Core Ultra 5 245?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA comes out ahead with a score of 7.5/10. That said, the best choice depends on your workload — check the spec and performance breakdown above for gaming, productivity and efficiency differences.
Which is faster for gaming, Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA or Intel Core Ultra 5 245?
For gaming, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA leads with a gaming performance score of 78/100 among Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA and Intel Core Ultra 5 245.
Do Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA and Intel Core Ultra 5 245 use the same socket?
Yes — all of these CPUs use the LGA 1851 socket, so they share compatible motherboards.
Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (5,100). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.