Intel Core 3 100HL vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant performance picture: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 100HL. The smallest margin appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 2261 against 2110 for the Core 3 100HL, a 6.7% advantage. That single-core gap is modest, but every other test shows a far larger separation.

The largest single-core difference appears in Cinebench R20, where the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus posts 2603 versus 886 for the Core 3 100HL, a 66% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar pattern: 328 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus versus 212, a 35.4% advantage. PassMark single-thread results confirm the trend at 4757 versus 3735, a 21.5% gap. These numbers indicate the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers substantially higher per-thread throughput across the entire Cinebench suite, even if the R23 single-core test narrows the distance.

Multi-core results widen the divide considerably. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30867 against 14948, a 51.6% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 18442 versus 6278, a 66% margin, and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4640 versus 1506, a 67.5% gap. PassMark multithread results follow with 51596 versus 17586, a 65.9% difference. The data indicates the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus roughly doubles or nearly doubles the Core 3 100HL in several multi-threaded workloads, a consequence of its higher core count and thread count.

Specialized PassMark workloads reveal the widest gaps. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads in find prime numbers by 486 to 48, a 90.1% margin, the largest delta in the entire comparison. Extended instructions show a 72% lead with 44565 versus 12463. Floating point math favors the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 162692 versus 42108, a 74.1% difference. Data encryption shows 42144 versus 11964, a 71.6% gap. Physics simulation records 3494 versus 928, a 73.4% margin. Data compression at 568721 versus 202225 represents a 64.4% lead. Integer math at 125091 versus 56308 is a 55% advantage. Random string sorting at 69090 versus 23223 is a 66.4% gap.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall positioning. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus averages 66855 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 100HL averages 23545, sitting in the 76th percentile. The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce the tier difference: the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits within 1.1% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, while the Core 3 100HL sits within 1.2% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H. These rival comparisons show the two processors occupy completely different performance classes.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every single-core benchmark. PassMark single-thread shows 4757 versus 3735, a 21.5% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2261 versus 2110, a 6.7% lead.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by 51.6% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (30867 versus 14948) and by 66% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (18442 versus 6278). PassMark multithread shows a 65.9% gap.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark difference between the two?

A: PassMark find prime numbers shows the largest delta at 90.1%, with the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scoring 486 against 48 for the Core 3 100HL.

Q: How do the two compare in memory and platform support?

A: The Core 3 100HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5 only. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also enables ECC memory, which the Core 3 100HL does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus carries a launch MSRP of $199. The Core 3 100HL has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Q: How do their overall database percentiles compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 100HL sits in the 76th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every benchmark category in the recorded data, so there is no workload in the database where the Core 3 100HL takes the lead. That said, the size of the advantage varies by workload type, which matters for use-case planning.

For single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus offers a moderate but consistent edge. The 21.5% PassMark single-thread lead and the 6.7% Cinebench R23 single-core lead indicate that everyday applications with limited thread scaling will still favor the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, but the margin is not overwhelming. The R20 single-core result at 66% is an outlier that suggests some single-thread workloads will see a much larger benefit.

For heavily threaded rendering, simulation, and encoding workloads, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is clearly the stronger choice. Cinebench multi-core results all exceed 50% margins, and PassMark multithread shows a 65.9% gap. The data compression, encryption, and extended instruction workloads all show gaps above 64%, indicating the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus excels in data-intensive and compute-heavy tasks.

The Core 3 100HL remains viable only in scenarios where its 45 W TDP and dual-generation memory support matter more than raw throughput. Its 12 threads and 12 MB of shared L3 cache are sufficient for modest workloads, but the benchmark record shows no performance category where it outruns the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Core 3 100HL uses 8 cores and 12 threads. The Core 3 100HL implements simultaneous multithreading, as shown by its 12 threads from 8 cores, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Core 3 100HL has a 2.10 GHz base clock and a 4.60 GHz boost clock. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus runs at 4.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. TDP ratings also diverge: the Core 3 100HL draws 45 W, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is rated at 125 W.

Socket compatibility is different. The Core 3 100HL uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, whereas the Core 3 100HL supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is multiplier unlocked; the Core 3 100HL is not.

Cache configurations differ at every level. The Core 3 100HL has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 115.2 GB/s.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus includes an Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU integrated GPU, versus the Iris Xe Graphics 48EU in the Core 3 100HL. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a recorded part number of SA4UZ and a launch MSRP of $199, while the Core 3 100HL has no part number or MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 100HL is built on Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arrow Lake Refresh with the Arrow Lake codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. The manufacturing process differs: the Core 3 100HL uses Intel's 10 nm node, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses TSMC's 3 nm node.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The Core 3 100HL has no transistor or die size data in the database. The foundry relationship also differs: Intel fabricates the Core 3 100HL, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

Memory support reflects the generational split. The Core 3 100HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, suggesting a transitional design, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5 exclusively. ECC memory support is present only on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core 3 100HL lacks ECC support entirely.

Release dates place the two in different periods. The Core 3 100HL released on 2024-04-07, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus released on 2026-03-10. Both are listed as Active in production status. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus carries a 3 nm process, 30 MB of L3 cache, and a higher per-core L1 and L2 allocation, all of which align with its newer architecture and stronger benchmark results.

The Verdict

The benchmark database shows a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus outperforms the Intel Core 3 100HL in every recorded test, with an average benchmark score of 66855 versus 23545. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus lands in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 100HL lands in the 76th percentile. The closest competition for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the AMD EPYC 4465P at a 0.1% delta and the Intel Xeon 6515P at 0.2%, while the Core 3 100HL trades near the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8540U and Intel Core i5-11500.

Buyers who need multi-core throughput should select the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867 more than doubles the Core 3 100HL's 14948, and its PassMark multithread score of 51596 nearly triples the 17586 posted by the Core 3 100HL. Workloads involving data compression, encryption, extended instructions, and physics simulation all show margins above 64% in favor of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

Buyers who must use DDR4 memory or require a 45 W TDP have reason to consider the Core 3 100HL, as its platform supports both DDR4 and DDR5 and its power envelope is much lower. The Core 3 100HL also uses the older Intel Socket 1700, which may matter for existing motherboard compatibility. However, the data offers no performance-based reason to prefer the Core 3 100HL over the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, offers ECC memory support, a higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz, a larger 30 MB L3 cache, and a more recent 3 nm process node. It is the stronger processor in every measurable category recorded in the database.