Intel Core 5 130UL vs Intel Core 7 251E Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts for the Intel Core 5 130UL and the Intel Core 7 251E?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E boosts to 5.60 GHz, compared to 4.70 GHz for the Intel Core 5 130UL.

Q: What is the difference in thermal design power between the two?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Core 7 251E has a 65 W TDP.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 5 130UL does not.

Q: What is the process node for both chips?

A: Both the Intel Core 5 130UL and the Intel Core 7 251E are manufactured on a 10 nm process node by Intel.

Architecture Differences

The two processors present distinctly different architectural approaches despite sharing the same Intel Socket 1700 platform and a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core 5 130UL is based on the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, while the Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, indicating a different design lineage within the same socket.

Core configuration separates them sharply. The Core 5 130UL delivers 10 cores and 12 threads, a configuration typical of efficiency-oriented parts. The Core 7 251E scales to 24 cores and 32 threads, more than doubling the core count and nearly tripling the thread count. This immediately positions the Core 7 251E for heavily parallel workloads, while the Core 5 130UL targets lower-power scenarios.

Cache hierarchy also diverges. Both chips share an 80 KB L1 cache per core. The L2 cache increases from 1.25 MB per core on the Core 5 130UL to 2 MB per core on the Core 7 251E. The L3 cache shows a substantial difference, with 12 MB shared on the Core 5 130UL versus 36 MB shared on the Core 7 251E. The larger shared cache on the Core 7 251E supports its higher core count and reduces latency for frequently accessed data across more threads.

Clock speeds reflect the design priorities. The Core 5 130UL runs at a 1.60 GHz base clock and reaches 4.70 GHz boost, emphasizing efficiency at low power. The Core 7 251E starts at a 2.10 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.60 GHz, delivering higher sustained and peak frequencies. The TDP figures align with these choices, 15 W for the Core 5 130UL and 65 W for the Core 7 251E, indicating the power envelope each design expects.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 130UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core 7 251E uses UHD Graphics 770. Memory bandwidth for the Core 7 251E is rated at 89.6 GB/s, while the Core 5 130UL has no recorded bandwidth figure in the database. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the Core 5 130UL providing Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes and the Core 7 251E providing Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, doubling both the generation and lane count.

The Core 7 251E carries a die size of 257 mm², whereas the Core 5 130UL has no die size recorded. The Core 7 251E also enables ECC memory support, a feature absent on the Core 5 130UL. Production status is Active for both, and neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark scores or nearest rival comparisons for either processor. Both the Intel Core 5 130UL and the Intel Core 7 251E have empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and no wins recorded in head-to-head testing. The percentile versus all CPUs stands at 50 for both parts, indicating that the data set does not yet differentiate their standing among all processors.

Without measured performance scores, the analysis relies on the architectural specifications recorded in the database. The Core 7 251E shows a theoretical advantage in raw throughput based on its 24 cores and 32 threads versus 10 cores and 12 threads for the Core 5 130UL. The boost clock difference, 5.60 GHz against 4.70 GHz, gives the Core 7 251E an edge in single-threaded peak performance as well.

The Core 5 130UL counters with a dramatically lower 15 W TDP, which indicates the power draw per unit of work is far smaller. The L3 cache difference, 36 MB versus 12 MB, favors the Core 7 251E for workloads with large working sets. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes on the Core 7 251E provides higher bandwidth for attached devices compared to Gen 4 with 8 lanes on the Core 5 130UL.

ECC memory support on the Core 7 251E adds reliability for error-sensitive computations, while the Core 5 130UL lacks this feature. The Core 7 251E also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, which the Core 5 130UL does not match in the database. The release dates place the Core 5 130UL first, with a 2024-04-07 timestamp, and the Core 7 251E later, with a 2025-01-12 timestamp.

The launch MSRP of the Core 7 251E is $384, stated once here as recorded. The Core 5 130UL has no launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two processors by design intent rather than measured performance. The Intel Core 5 130UL fits scenarios where power consumption is the limiting factor, given its 15 W TDP, 10 cores, and 12 threads. The Intel Core 7 251E targets workloads that scale across many threads, with 24 cores, 32 threads, and a 65 W TDP.

Users requiring ECC memory support must choose the Core 7 251E, as the Core 5 130UL does not enable this feature. The Core 7 251E also provides faster PCIe connectivity, Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes, which matters for high-bandwidth peripherals. The Core 5 130UL delivers a lower-power alternative with the same DDR4 and DDR5 memory support and the same 10 nm process node.

The Core 7 251E shows higher clock speeds in both base and boost states, 2.10 GHz and 5.60 GHz respectively, compared to 1.60 GHz and 4.70 GHz on the Core 5 130UL. The cache hierarchy favors the Core 7 251E with 2 MB L2 per core and 36 MB L3 shared, while the Core 5 130UL has 1.25 MB L2 per core and 12 MB L3 shared. The Core 7 251E also has a recorded die size of 257 mm² and a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, neither of which appears for the Core 5 130UL.

The choice depends on the workload priorities defined by these specifications. For high-throughput, multi-threaded tasks with ECC requirements, the Core 7 251E is the appropriate part. For low-power operation with modest core counts, the Core 5 130UL serves that role. The absence of benchmark scores means no performance ranking can be assigned beyond these architectural comparisons.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 130UL | Intel Core 7 251E |

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

| Cores | 10 | 24 |

| Threads | 12 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 1.60 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Bartlett Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) | Core 7 (Bartlett Lake) |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 257 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $384 |

| Part Number | unknown | SRQDUQ657 |

The table above lists only the fields where the two processors differ. Shared attributes include the Intel Socket 1700, 10 nm process node, Intel as the foundry, 80 KB L1 cache per core, DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, Desktop market segment, Active production status, and locked multipliers.