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

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 does not secure a single victory in any measured test. This is a decisive sweep, and the margins are substantial across nearly every category.

The two processors occupy different market segments, which explains the scale of the performance gap. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is a mobile part designed for laptops and compact systems, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop processor aimed at higher-performance builds. The use-case split is therefore less about workload preferences and more about platform expectations.

In single-threaded workloads, the Intel part leads by 21.7 percent in PassMark's single-thread test, which reflects responsiveness in everyday applications, light productivity, and tasks that rely on one or two cores. In multi-threaded scenarios, the gap widens dramatically. The Intel processor delivers double the PassMark multithread score, 50,146 versus 25,089, a delta of exactly 50 percent. This pattern repeats across every compute-heavy test in the database.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also holds a 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 sits at the 86th percentile. That places the Intel part in the upper tier of all recorded processors, whereas the AMD chip, while still above average, sits further down the distribution. The average benchmark score for the Intel part is 66,159, compared to 38,221 for the AMD part, a difference of roughly 73 percent in overall aggregate performance.

The only area where the AMD processor holds a practical advantage is platform integration. It includes a Radeon 780M integrated graphics solution, whereas the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics at all, listed as N/A. For a desktop system that requires a discrete graphics card anyway, this is not a functional deficit, but it does mean the Intel part cannot operate without a separate GPU.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is significant and explains much of the performance delta. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename and uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Arrow Lake Refresh architecture on a 3 nm process, also from TSMC. The smaller process node gives Intel a density and efficiency advantage in theory, though the desktop part consumes far more power.

Core counts differ substantially. The AMD processor has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel processor has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel part does not use hyperthreading, so its thread count equals its core count, but it still offers 2 more physical cores and 2 more threads than the AMD chip. In heavily parallel workloads, this core advantage compounds with the higher clock speeds.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus runs at a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 runs at 3.30 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. The Intel part is faster at both ends, with a 0.90 GHz base clock advantage and a 0.20 GHz boost advantage. The power envelope tells a similar story: the Intel part has a TDP of 125 watts, while the AMD part is rated at 28 watts. This is a mobile versus desktop distinction, and it reflects the intended usage scenarios.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 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 part, combined with nearly double the L3 capacity, give it a meaningful advantage in workloads that benefit from data locality and repeated access to working sets.

Memory bandwidth differs as well. The AMD processor supports dual-channel DDR5 with a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel processor also supports dual-channel DDR5, but its bandwidth is rated at 115.2 GB/s, a 28.6 percent increase. PCIe connectivity also favors the Intel part: it supports Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The Intel processor is also listed as having an unlocked multiplier, whereas the AMD part is locked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in the entire comparison appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42,718 against 14,676 for the AMD Ryzen 7 250. The delta is -65.6 percent from the AMD perspective, meaning the Intel part is roughly 2.9 times faster in this heavily threaded rendering workload. This is the clearest signal of the core count and power envelope advantage.

Cinebench R23 single-core shows a similarly lopsided result. The Intel part scores 6,030, while the AMD part scores 1,715, a delta of -71.6 percent. This is the largest percentage gap in any test in the database. The single-core advantage is notable because it indicates that even in lightly threaded tasks, the Intel part's higher boost clock and newer architecture produce a massive lead.

In PassMark's integer math test, the gap narrows considerably. The Intel part scores 123,030 against 91,565 for the AMD part, a delta of -25.6 percent. This is the smallest margin in the entire comparison, suggesting that integer-heavy workloads, such as certain types of data processing and general computation, do not scale as dramatically with core count or clock speed. The AMD processor's Zen 4 architecture holds up relatively better here.

The floating-point math test tells a different story. Intel scores 159,824, while AMD scores 53,285, a delta of -66.7 percent. Floating-point throughput benefits heavily from the Intel part's additional cores, larger caches, and higher memory bandwidth. This is a workload where the desktop processor's resources come into full play.

Data compression shows Intel at 553,155 versus AMD at 300,708, a delta of -45.6 percent. Data encryption shows Intel at 41,292 versus AMD at 17,661, a delta of -57.2 percent. Extended instruction set performance, which measures SIMD and vectorized workloads, shows Intel at 42,880 versus AMD at 21,613, a delta of -49.6 percent. The prime number search test has the largest relative disparity after single-core: Intel scores 452, while AMD scores 73, a delta of -83.8 percent. This test is highly sensitive to integer throughput and branch prediction, and the Intel part dominates.

Random string sorting shows Intel at 67,209 versus AMD at 35,861, a delta of -46.6 percent. The physics test shows Intel at 3,183 versus AMD at 1,147, a delta of -64 percent. PassMark multithread shows Intel at 50,146 versus AMD at 25,089, a delta of -50 percent. Even in the single-thread PassMark test, the Intel part leads with 4,698 versus 3,678, a delta of -21.7 percent.

The Verdict

The data points to an unambiguous conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the faster processor in every measurable dimension recorded in the database. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 does not win any benchmark comparison, and the margins are often large enough to define a different performance class entirely.

For a desktop user who needs maximum compute throughput, rendering speed, encryption performance, or multi-threaded productivity, the Intel part is the clear choice. Its 18 cores, higher clock speeds, larger caches, and greater memory bandwidth deliver a performance profile that the AMD mobile chip cannot approach. The 93rd percentile ranking reinforces this: the Intel part sits near the top of the entire CPU distribution, while the AMD part, at the 86th percentile, is a solid but not exceptional performer.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 makes sense only in a mobile context, where its 28-watt TDP and integrated Radeon 780M graphics are practical advantages. The data does not show it winning any performance test, but it also does not compete in the same thermal or power envelope. A mobile processor with a 28-watt TDP cannot be expected to match a desktop processor with a 125-watt TDP, and the benchmark results reflect exactly that expectation.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a launch MSRP of $184, which places it in the mid-range desktop segment. The AMD processor has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Neither processor should be selected based on performance parity, because no parity exists in the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Intel processor scores 6,030 against 1,715 for the AMD processor, a delta of -71.6 percent.

Q: Does the AMD processor have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 7 250 includes a Radeon 780M integrated GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

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

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Intel processor has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the AMD processor has 89.6 GB/s. Both support dual-channel DDR5.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across the following recorded specifications:

Cores: AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores.

Threads: AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 16 threads. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 threads.

Base clock: AMD Ryzen 7 250 runs at 3.30 GHz. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus runs at 4.20 GHz.

Boost clock: AMD Ryzen 7 250 boosts to 5.10 GHz. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz.

TDP: AMD Ryzen 7 250 is rated at 28 watts. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is rated at 125 watts.

Socket: AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses AMD Socket FP8. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851.

Process node: AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses 4 nm. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses 3 nm.

Transistor count: AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 25,000 million transistors. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 17,800 million transistors.

Die size: AMD Ryzen 7 250 has a die size of 178 mm². Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a die size of 243 mm².

L1 cache: AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 64 KB per core. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 192 KB per core.

L2 cache: AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 1 MB per core. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 3 MB per core.

L3 cache: AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 16 MB shared. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 30 MB shared.

Memory bandwidth: AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 89.6 GB/s. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 115.2 GB/s.

ECC memory support: AMD Ryzen 7 250 does not support ECC memory. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory.

PCIe generation: AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses Gen 4. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Gen 5.

Integrated graphics: AMD Ryzen 7 250 includes Radeon 780M. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics.

Market segment: AMD Ryzen 7 250 is a mobile processor. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop processor.

Unlocked multiplier: AMD Ryzen 7 250 is locked. Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is unlocked.