Intel Core 5 130HL vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark entries for the Intel Core 5 130HL and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core 5 130HL has no recorded benchmark scores, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus carries a full suite of 17 measurements. As a result, direct score-to-score comparison is impossible, and the analysis must rely on the available data for the 250K Plus alongside its percentile ranking and nearest rival deltas.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 66,855. Its nearest recorded rival, the AMD EPYC 4465P, averages 66,925, which places the 250K Plus 0.1% behind. The Intel Xeon 6515P averages 67,006, a 0.2% gap in favor of that Xeon. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX averages 67,469, leaving the 250K Plus 0.9% behind. Conversely, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus averages 66,159, and the 250K Plus leads that part by 1.1%. These deltas indicate that the 250K Plus operates within a tight performance band, essentially matching the EPYC 4465P and Xeon 6515P while trailing the Ultra 9 275HX by a slim margin.

Within its own benchmark suite, the 250K Plus shows its strongest multi-threaded results. Cinebench R23 multi-core returns 30,867, while Cinebench R20 multi-core scores 18,442 and Cinebench R15 multi-core scores 4,640. The single-core results are 2,261 in R23, 2,603 in R20, and 328 in R15. PassMark multi-thread scoring reaches 51,596, and single-thread scoring reaches 4,757. The data compression test yields 568,721, and data encryption yields 42,144. Integer math posts 125,091, floating-point math posts 162,692, extended instructions post 44,565, and random string sorting posts 69,090. Find prime numbers returns 486, and physics returns 3,494.

The Core 5 130HL, by contrast, has no benchmark entries, no average score, and no nearest rivals in the database. Its percentile rank of 50 indicates it sits at the median of all recorded CPUs, but without concrete scores, the database offers no quantitative basis for head-to-head wins. The only observable conclusion is that the 250K Plus delivers measurable performance across every recorded test, while the 130HL provides no measured output.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus outperform the Intel Core 5 130HL in every benchmark category?

A: The database records no benchmark scores for the 130HL, so no direct comparison is possible. The 250K Plus has 17 recorded scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 30,867 and a PassMark single-thread result of 4,757, but the 130HL has zero entries.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,855. The Core 5 130HL has an average benchmark score of 0, reflecting the absence of any recorded tests.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus rank against all CPUs?

A: It sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 4465P, is 0.1% faster, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is 0.9% faster, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is 1.1% slower.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Core 5 130HL boosts to 4.80 GHz. The 250K Plus also has a higher base clock at 4.20 GHz versus 2.60 GHz for the 130HL.

Q: Do the two processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 130HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5. The 250K Plus also records a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, a figure the 130HL does not list.

Q: Is ECC memory supported on either processor?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 130HL does not. This is a distinguishing feature in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus as the measured performer, with 17 benchmark scores, a 93rd percentile ranking, and an average score of 66,855. The Core 5 130HL has none of those attributes in the database, so any selection between the two must be based on specifications alone.

For workloads that demand multi-threaded throughput, the 250K Plus delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30,867 and a PassMark multi-thread score of 51,596. Its single-core results, such as 4,757 in PassMark single-thread and 2,261 in Cinebench R23 single-core, also provide concrete evidence of strong per-thread capability. The 130HL offers no such figures, meaning there is no recorded basis to claim any performance advantage for it.

The 250K Plus also carries a higher clock configuration, with a 5.30 GHz boost against 4.80 GHz for the 130HL, and a base clock of 4.20 GHz against 2.60 GHz. It uses a newer socket, Socket 1851 versus Socket 1700, and its process node is listed as 3 nm from TSMC, while the 130HL uses 10 nm from Intel. Those differences favor the 250K Plus on paper.

The 130HL does hold some specification advantages. It draws a 45 W TDP compared to 125 W for the 250K Plus, and it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the 250K Plus is DDR5-only. Its integrated graphics, Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, has more execution units than the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU in the 250K Plus. For users prioritizing lower power draw or DDR4 compatibility, the 130HL offers those traits, but the database provides no benchmark evidence that it competes on raw performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Core 5 130HL has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Base clocks are 2.60 GHz for the 130HL and 4.20 GHz for the 250K Plus, with boost clocks of 4.80 GHz and 5.30 GHz respectively. TDP is 45 W for the 130HL and 125 W for the 250K Plus.

Sockets differ: the 130HL uses Intel Socket 1700, and the 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. The process node is 10 nm for the 130HL and 3 nm for the 250K Plus, with the foundry listed as Intel for the former and TSMC for the latter. The 250K Plus records 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm², while the 130HL lists neither.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The 130HL has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The 250K Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the 130HL, DDR5 only for the 250K Plus. The 250K Plus lists a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, and the 130HL does not. ECC memory is supported by the 250K Plus, not by the 130HL. PCIe lanes differ as well: Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the 130HL, Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the 250K Plus.

Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU for the 130HL, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the 250K Plus. The 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the 130HL is locked. The 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199, and the 130HL has no recorded launch MSRP. Release dates are 2024-04-07 for the 130HL and 2026-03-10 for the 250K Plus. The 250K Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 with the codename Arrow Lake Refresh, while the 130HL carries the Raptor Lake-PS codename.

Architecture Differences

The architecture split is substantial. The Core 5 130HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, manufactured on a 10 nm node at Intel. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename under the Core Ultra Series 2, manufactured on a 3 nm node at TSMC. The 250K Plus lists 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size, while the 130HL provides no transistor or die size data.

Core and cache organization reflects the generational gap. The 130HL uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The 250K Plus uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The 250K Plus also supports ECC memory and a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, both absent from the 130HL. PCIe connectivity jumps from Gen 4 with 8 lanes on the 130HL to Gen 5 with 20 lanes on the 250K Plus.

Integrated graphics differ in architecture as well. The 130HL carries Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the 250K Plus carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Despite fewer execution units, the 250K Plus graphics are from a newer generation. The 250K Plus also has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, which the 130HL does not offer.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins on every recorded benchmark metric, simply because it has recorded metrics. Its multi-threaded strength is clear: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 30,867, R20 at 18,442, and R15 at 4,640, plus PassMark multi-thread at 51,596. For single-thread work, it posts 2,261 in R23, 2,603 in R20, 328 in R15, and 4,757 in PassMark single-thread. Specialized workloads also show strong numbers, including data compression at 568,721, floating-point math at 162,692, integer math at 125,091, and random string sorting at 69,090.

The Core 5 130HL wins on efficiency and compatibility. Its 45 W TDP is a fraction of the 250K Plus's 125 W, making it the lower-power choice. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5, which suits systems with existing DDR4 memory. Its Iris Xe Graphics 80EU carries more execution units than the 64EU Arc unit in the 250K Plus, potentially offering stronger integrated graphics output in that specific metric. Its Socket 1700 compatibility may also align with existing motherboards, though the database does not specify board availability.

For compute-heavy tasks such as rendering, encryption, or data compression, the 250K Plus is the only one with measured results, and those results are strong. For power-sensitive deployments or memory flexibility, the 130HL offers the specification edge, but without benchmark data, its actual performance remains unquantified. The database supports choosing the 250K Plus for measured performance and the 130HL for lower power and broader memory support.