AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus occupy different corners of the processor market, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive performance gap. The Intel part wins every single head-to-head comparison in the database, with the AMD chip trailing by margins that range from roughly one-fifth to over four-fifths depending on the workload. The average benchmark scores tell the same story: the Ryzen 7 260 scores 43,717 points, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus reaches 66,159 points.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in the entire comparison is the Cinebench R23 single-core test. The Ryzen 7 260 scores 1,770.5 points, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 6,030 points, a 70.6 percent deficit for the AMD part. That is the largest delta in the dataset, and it establishes a clear single-threaded hierarchy. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a similar pattern, with the Intel processor scoring 607 points versus 276.5 points for the AMD chip, a 54.4 percent gap.

Multi-core performance also heavily favors Intel. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus posts 42,718 points against 17,211.5 points for the Ryzen 7 260, a 59.7 percent difference. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows 4,305 points versus 2,747.5 points, a 36.2 percent deficit. These results indicate that the Intel processor delivers substantially more sustained throughput in rendering workloads that scale across cores.

The PassMark suite reinforces the pattern. The Intel chip wins the multithread test with 50,146 points versus 28,078 points, a 44 percent advantage. Floating point math is even more one-sided: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 159,824 points, while the Ryzen 7 260 scores 59,462 points, a 62.8 percent gap. Physics simulation shows a 61.7 percent deficit for the AMD part, with scores of 3,183 points versus 1,218 points.

The smallest deltas appear in integer math and single-threaded PassMark tests. In integer math, Intel wins 123,030 points to 96,737 points, a 21.4 percent advantage. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4,698 points versus 3,736 points, a 20.5 percent gap. These are still clear wins for Intel, but the narrower margins indicate that the Ryzen 7 260 is comparatively less disadvantaged in integer-heavy single-threaded work.

Data-centric workloads also favor Intel, though the margins vary. Data compression shows 553,155 points versus 351,517 points, a 36.5 percent deficit. Data encryption shows 41,292 points versus 20,267 points, a 50.9 percent gap. Extended instructions score 42,880 points versus 26,544 points, a 38.1 percent difference. Random string sorting goes to Intel at 67,209 points against 42,383 points, a 36.9 percent margin. The prime number test is the most extreme result of all: Intel scores 452 points, AMD scores 77 points, an 83 percent deficit.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons in the database, with zero wins for the AMD Ryzen 7 260. The average benchmark score for the Intel processor, 66,159 points, places it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs tracked. The AMD processor, with an average score of 43,717 points, sits at the 88th percentile.

The Intel part sits in a peer group that includes the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which scores 65,914 points and trails the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus by just 0.4 percent. The AMD Ryzen 7 260, by contrast, sits closest to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 at 43,704 points, a 0 percent difference, and the AMD Ryzen 7 170 at 43,689 points, a 0.1 percent delta. These nearest-rival groupings show that the Ryzen 7 260 competes with other mid-range AMD parts, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus competes with flagship-class processors.

For workloads that demand high throughput, whether multi-core rendering, floating point math, or data encryption, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the stronger choice according to every recorded measurement. The Ryzen 7 260 remains competitive only in the sense that its narrowest deficits, around 20 percent, appear in integer math and single-threaded PassMark tests. It does not close the gap in any category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process from TSMC. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename under the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, built on a 3 nm process from TSMC. It offers 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz.

The core count disparity is central to the performance gap. The Intel chip has more than double the cores of the AMD chip, and it does not use simultaneous multithreading, which explains the 18 threads matching 18 cores. The AMD chip uses SMT, giving it 16 threads from 8 cores. The Intel processor also has higher clocks on both base and boost, which contributes to its single-thread dominance.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Ryzen 7 260 carries 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus carries 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches and the nearly double shared L3 give Intel an advantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory bandwidth also favors Intel. The Ryzen 7 260 supports dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support DDR5, but the Intel part has a 28.5 percent higher theoretical memory bandwidth figure. The Intel processor also supports ECC memory, while the AMD part does not.

The platform differences are significant. The Ryzen 7 260 uses AMD Socket FP8, a mobile socket, and targets the mobile market segment. It includes integrated Radeon 780M graphics. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, targets the desktop segment, and has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the N/A iGPU field. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part is locked. PCIe support also differs: the AMD chip provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Power characteristics reflect the segment difference. The Ryzen 7 260 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125 watts. The Intel part draws significantly more power, which aligns with its desktop positioning and higher performance. The transistor counts also differ: the AMD chip has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the Intel chip has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The AMD processor was released on 2025-01-05, while the Intel processor was released on 2026-03-10. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $184.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 15 head-to-head benchmarks recorded in the database. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins zero.

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

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Intel processor scores 452 points and the AMD processor scores 77 points, an 83 percent deficit.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The Intel processor has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The AMD processor has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has an average benchmark score of 43,717 points, placing it at the 88th percentile. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,159 points, placing it at the 93rd percentile.

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

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

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 does not win any benchmark category in the recorded data. Its narrowest losses come in PassMark integer math, where it trails by 21.4 percent, and PassMark single-thread, where it trails by 20.5 percent. In those specific tests, the AMD chip demonstrates that its Zen 4 architecture can approach the Intel part more closely, but it still finishes behind.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins everywhere else by wide margins. It dominates multi-core rendering in Cinebench R23 with a 59.7 percent advantage, floating point math with a 62.8 percent advantage, and physics simulation with a 61.7 percent advantage. Data encryption shows a 50.9 percent win, and data compression shows a 36.5 percent win. The prime number test, extended instructions, and random string sorting all favor Intel by margins between 36.9 percent and 83 percent.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. For any workload that benefits from more cores, higher clocks, larger caches, or greater memory bandwidth, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers the better result according to every measurement in the database. The AMD Ryzen 7 260, as a mobile-segment part with a 45 watt TDP and integrated graphics, offers a lower-power alternative, but the benchmark data does not show a single workload where it outperforms the Intel desktop part. The Intel processor also provides ECC memory support, Gen 5 PCIe, and an unlocked multiplier, none of which the AMD part offers.