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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a decisive performance gap between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core 5 130UL does not have any recorded benchmark scores, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a full suite of results across Cinebench and Passmark tests. The comparison is therefore one-sided, with the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus carrying all measured performance data.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867 and a single-core score of 2261. In Cinebench R20, it records 18442 multi-core and 2603 single-core. The older R15 test shows 4640 multi-core and 328 single-core. These scores place the processor at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 66855.

Passmark results reinforce the multi-threaded strength. The processor scores 51596 in multithread, 125091 in integer math, and 162692 in floating point math. Data compression reaches 568721, while encryption hits 42144. Extended instructions score 44565, and random string sorting reaches 69090. Single-thread performance is 4757 in both Passmark single-thread tests, with prime number finding at 486 and physics at 3494.

The nearest rivals in the database confirm the competitive position of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The AMD EPYC 4465P sits 0.1% ahead with an average score of 66925. The Intel Xeon 6515P is 0.2% ahead at 67006. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX leads by 0.9% with 67469. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus trails by 1.1% at 66159. These deltas are narrow, indicating the 250K Plus performs within a tight band around comparable workstation and desktop parts.

No head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the database for the two processors, and the wins tally shows zero victories for either side. The Core 5 130UL has no recorded scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and a 50th percentile ranking. That percentile is a placeholder rather than a measured result, since no tests populate its record.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every measurable category because it is the only processor in this comparison with benchmark data. Its multi-core results are particularly strong. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867 indicates heavy sustained workload capability, suitable for rendering, compilation, and simulation tasks that scale across cores.

Single-core performance is also solid. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2261 and Passmark single-thread score of 4757 show responsiveness in lightly threaded applications such as everyday desktop use, web browsing, and office productivity. The Passmark integer and floating point scores, 125091 and 162692 respectively, point to balanced arithmetic throughput for mixed workloads.

The Core 5 130UL has no recorded wins in any benchmark category. The database contains no scores for it, so no use-case advantage can be derived from measurements. Its 50th percentile ranking and zero average score reflect an absence of tested data rather than a measured performance level.

For the 250K Plus, the database shows the strongest relative performance in multi-threaded tests. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867 and Passmark multithread score of 51596 are the standout figures. The data compression result of 568721 is another high mark, suggesting strong throughput for archiving and file-handling workloads. Encryption at 42144 indicates adequate cryptographic processing, though it is not the top result.

The narrow rival deltas, from 0.1% to 1.1%, place the 250K Plus in a competitive tier where small differences separate it from adjacent processors. The 0.1% gap to the AMD EPYC 4465P is effectively a tie. The 1.1% gap to the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus shows the non-K variant is marginally faster in the database averages.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Core 5 130UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel foundries. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The 250K Plus has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 130UL has no transistor or die size data recorded.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The 250K Plus has no hyper-threading, meaning each core handles one thread. The 130UL has 12 threads across 10 cores, indicating some cores carry two threads.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The 130UL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The 250K Plus 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 and triple the L3 capacity give the 250K Plus a clear advantage for cache-sensitive workloads.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 130UL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The 250K Plus includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The 130UL has more execution units, though the newer Arc architecture in the 250K Plus may offer different feature support.

Memory support diverges. The 130UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 250K Plus supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The 250K Plus has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the 130UL has no bandwidth figure. The 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the 130UL does not.

PCI Express connectivity differs. The 130UL provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. The 250K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The newer and wider PCIe implementation on the 250K Plus supports faster expansion cards and more direct connectivity.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database. Clock speeds show a significant gap. The 130UL has a base clock of 1.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The 250K Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The 250K Plus runs at a higher base frequency by a wide margin, and its boost clock is also higher.

Power targets are far apart. The 130UL has a TDP of 15 watts, while the 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts. This reflects the intended usage: the 130UL is a low-power part, while the 250K Plus is a high-performance desktop processor.

Sockets are incompatible. The 130UL uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. Motherboards for one will not accept the other.

The multiplier is unlocked on the 250K Plus, allowing overclocking. The 130UL has a locked multiplier. The 250K Plus has a part number of SA4UZ, while the 130UL has an unknown part number.

Release dates differ. The 130UL was released on April 7, 2024. The 250K Plus was released on March 10, 2026. The launch MSRP for the 250K Plus is $199. The 130UL has no launch MSRP recorded.

Process node and foundry differ as noted. The 130UL uses Intel 10 nm, and the 250K Plus uses TSMC 3 nm. The 250K Plus has a recorded transistor count and die size, while the 130UL has neither. The 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the 130UL does not. The 130UL supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the 250K Plus supports only DDR5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 130UL boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66855. The Intel Core 5 130UL has an average benchmark score of 0, with no recorded benchmarks.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 5 130UL does not.

Q: What sockets do these processors use?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL uses Intel Socket 1700. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus ranks at the 93rd percentile. The Intel Core 5 130UL ranks at the 50th percentile, though it has no benchmark scores recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for measurable performance. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has comprehensive benchmark results across Cinebench and Passmark, an average score of 66855, and a 93rd percentile ranking. The Intel Core 5 130UL has no recorded benchmarks, an average score of zero, and a 50th percentile ranking that reflects missing data rather than measured performance.

The 250K Plus delivers strong multi-threaded results, with Cinebench R23 multi-core at 30867 and Passmark multithread at 51596. Its single-core scores are also solid, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 2261 and Passmark single-thread at 4757. These results place it within 1.1% of the nearest rivals in the database, including the AMD EPYC 4465P at 0.1% ahead and the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX at 0.9% ahead.

The architectural advantages of the 250K Plus reinforce its benchmark position. It uses a 3 nm TSMC process, has 18 cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. It supports DDR5 memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, ECC memory, and PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The 130UL offers lower power consumption at 15 watts TDP and support for DDR4, but it has no measured performance data and a much lower core count.

The 130UL may serve in low-power or legacy socket scenarios, given its 15 watt TDP and DDR4 support. But the database contains no evidence of its performance in any workload. The 250K Plus is the only processor in this comparison with verified results, and those results are competitive with nearby workstation-class parts.

For a builder choosing between these two based on recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the only option with demonstrated performance. Its launch MSRP is $199, it has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and it uses the newer Intel Socket 1851. The 130UL has no performance record and no price data, leaving it without a measurable case for selection.