AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus records an average benchmark score of 66855, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 records 38221. The Intel part also sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 86th percentile for the AMD part.

Q: What are the respective core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning it has more physical cores but no hyperthreading-style extra threads.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30867 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 52.5% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 250's score of 14676.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 4757 versus 3678 for the AMD Ryzen 7 250, a 22.7% advantage for Intel. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel part scores 2261 versus 1715, a 24.1% lead.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 does not.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has a TDP of 28 watts, whereas the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is built on the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename from the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts differ substantially: the AMD chip integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the Intel chip uses 17,800 million transistors on a larger 243 mm² die.

Cache layouts diverge significantly. The AMD processor provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Intel side align with its higher core count and wider memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, compared to 89.6 GB/s for the AMD part.

PCIe support differs by generation: the AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Both support dual-channel DDR5 memory. The integrated graphics also differ: AMD pairs the chip with Radeon 780M graphics, while Intel uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The market segments reflect different design goals. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is classified as a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851. The Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier, meaning it can be overclocked, whereas the AMD chip has a locked multiplier. Intel also enables ECC memory support, a feature absent on the AMD side.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clean sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 15 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with no wins for the AMD Ryzen 7 250. The margins, however, vary meaningfully by workload type.

The largest gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel chip scores 486 versus 73 for the AMD chip, an 85% difference. This test is highly sensitive to integer throughput and core count, and the Intel part's 18 cores dominate here. PassMark data encryption shows a 58.1% lead for Intel (42144 versus 17661), and data compression shows a 47.1% lead (568721 versus 300708). These encryption and compression workloads scale well with parallel resources, favoring the higher-core-count Intel processor.

Floating-point math and physics tests both show a 67.2% advantage for Intel. In floating-point math, the Intel chip scores 162692 versus 53285, and in physics it scores 3494 versus 1147. The extended instructions test shows a 51.5% lead (44565 versus 21613), and random string sorting shows a 48.1% lead (69090 versus 35861).

Cinebench results reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 4640 versus 2302, a 50.4% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 30867 versus 14676, a 52.5% lead. The single-core Cinebench margins are smaller but still decisive: 18% in R15 (328 versus 269) and 24.1% in R23 (2261 versus 1715). PassMark single-thread shows a 22.7% lead (4757 versus 3678).

The integer math test shows the narrowest relative margin among the recorded benchmarks: Intel scores 125091 versus 91565, a 26.8% lead. Even in this comparatively close result, the Intel part maintains a clear advantage. The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus does not merely win on multi-threaded throughput; it also holds a substantial single-thread edge across both Cinebench and PassMark tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 250 | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 18 |

| Threads | 16 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-03-10 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | $199 |

The Intel chip carries higher base and boost clocks, more cores, more cache at every level, and a faster PCIe generation. The AMD chip draws far less power (28 W versus 125 W) and uses a smaller die despite having more transistors. The release dates are separated by roughly fourteen months, with Intel launching later.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data shows no test where the AMD Ryzen 7 250 comes out ahead. Every single measurement, from Cinebench multi-core to PassMark integer math, favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The AMD part's only advantages in the database are structural rather than performance-based: lower TDP, smaller die size, and mobile market positioning.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins decisively in all compute-heavy categories. Its largest margins come in prime number finding (85% lead), floating-point math (67.2% lead), and physics (67.2% lead). These tests stress raw parallel execution, and the 18-core Intel design responds accordingly. Encryption and compression workloads also show large Intel advantages, with 58.1% and 47.1% leads respectively.

For single-threaded tasks, the Intel chip still leads, but by smaller margins. The PassMark single-thread score of 4757 versus 3678 represents a 22.7% advantage, and the Cinebench R23 single-core score shows a 24.1% lead. These results suggest that the Intel architecture has a per-core performance edge as well as a core-count edge.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250's role in the database is defined by its thermal envelope. At 28 W TDP, it belongs in mobile systems where power draw matters more than absolute throughput. Its Radeon 780M integrated graphics and 4 nm process node point to an efficiency-focused design. No benchmark in the dataset rewards that efficiency, however; the Intel part wins every recorded performance test.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus outperforms the AMD Ryzen 7 250 in every recorded benchmark. The average benchmark score of 66855 for Intel versus 38221 for AMD places the Intel chip in a higher performance class, confirmed by its 93rd percentile ranking versus 86th for AMD.

Users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput should choose the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Its 18 cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth produce leads of 50% or more in Cinebench multi-core, data compression, and encryption tests. The chip also offers an unlocked multiplier, ECC memory support, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, making it suitable for desktop workstations where expansion and overclocking are priorities. The launch MSRP is $199.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 serves a different purpose. Its 28 W TDP and mobile socket designation indicate a design target of low-power laptops and compact systems. The 8-core, 16-thread configuration with Radeon 780M graphics provides a balanced mobile package, but the benchmark record shows it trailing the Intel desktop part by margins from 18% to 85% depending on the test. Users constrained by power budgets or mobile form factors would consider this chip, but performance comparisons from the database show no workload where it overtakes the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce the positioning. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T, the Intel Core i5-13600HX, and the Intel Core i5-14490F in average score. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits within 1.1% of the AMD EPYC 4465P, the Intel Xeon 6515P, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX. The Intel part competes in a higher performance tier altogether, while the AMD part aligns with mid-range mobile and desktop processors from the previous generation.