Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates with an average benchmark score of 66159, while the Intel Core 5 210H records 24872. The Ultra 5 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 77th percentile for the Core 5.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 72.3% ahead of the Core 5 210H's 11830. This is the largest single benchmark margin between the two processors.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel Core 5 210H wins?

A: No. Out of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 17. The Core 5 210H records zero wins across the entire benchmark suite.

Q: What is the main architectural difference between these two chips?

A: The Core 5 210H uses Intel's 10 nm Raptor Lake-H architecture with 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses TSMC's 3 nm Arrow Lake Refresh process with 18 cores and 18 threads. The Ultra 5 also features a larger 30 MB shared L3 cache versus 12 MB on the Core 5.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 210H does not include ECC support in its specifications.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H was released on December 17, 2024, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus came later on March 10, 2026. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 210H is $342, and the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a launch MSRP of $184.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Core 5 210H is built on Intel's 10 nm Raptor Lake-H process and carries the Raptor Lake Refresh generation label. It uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket and is designed for mobile platforms. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, features the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, and uses TSMC's 3 nm manufacturing process. This process node advantage is significant, as the Ultra 5 packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, while the Core 5's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Core 5 210H provides 8 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus offers 18 cores and 18 threads, suggesting all cores are identical without hyper-threading. Clock speeds also favor the Ultra 5: it has a 4.20 GHz base clock and 5.30 GHz boost clock, compared to 2.20 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost on the Core 5.

Cache hierarchy reveals another major distinction. The Core 5 210H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus doubles the L1 to 192 KB per core, increases L2 to 3 MB per core, and provides 30 MB of shared L3 cache. This larger cache allocation contributes to the Ultra 5's superior performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

The memory and I/O subsystems also diverge. The Core 5 210H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports only DDR5. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Ultra 5 at 115.2 GB/s. PCIe connectivity favors the Ultra 5 with Gen 5 and 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 includes integrated Iris Xe Graphics 48EU, whereas the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics. The Ultra 5 also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 is locked. Power envelopes differ dramatically: the Core 5 draws 45 W TDP versus 125 W TDP for the Ultra 5, reflecting the desktop versus mobile positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus across every recorded test. The smallest margin appears in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Ultra 5 scores 4698 versus 3539 for the Core 5, a 24.7% advantage. This indicates that even in lightly threaded workloads, the newer architecture and higher clock speeds provide a meaningful edge.

The single-core Cinebench results confirm this pattern. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 records 6030 against 1771, a 70.6% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2532 versus 918, a 63.7% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core follows with 607 versus 247, a 59.3% difference. These results demonstrate that the Ultra 5's 5.30 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process deliver superior per-thread performance.

Multi-core benchmarks amplify the advantage. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Ultra 5 at 42718 versus 11830, a 72.3% lead, the largest margin in the suite. Cinebench R20 multi-core records 17941 versus 6504, a 63.7% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core delivers 4305 versus 1757, a 59.2% difference. The 18-core configuration of the Ultra 5 clearly scales better than the 8-core, 12-thread Core 5.

PassMark workloads follow the same trajectory. Integer math shows 123030 versus 61503, a 50% advantage. Floating-point math records 159824 versus 45057, a 71.8% lead. Extended instructions score 42880 versus 13370, a 68.8% gap. Data compression reaches 553155 versus 217805, a 60.6% margin. Data encryption delivers 41292 versus 12187, a 70.5% advantage. Find prime numbers shows 452 versus 53, an 88.3% lead, the largest percentage gap in the entire benchmark set. Random string sorting records 67209 versus 23451, a 65.1% margin. Multithread scores 50146 versus 18252, a 63.6% gap. Physics delivers 3183 versus 1040, a 67.3% advantage.

Specification Differences

The database records the following specification differences between the two processors:

• Cores: 8 (Core 5 210H) versus 18 (Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus)
• Threads: 12 versus 18
• Base clock: 2.20 GHz versus 4.20 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 5.30 GHz
• TDP: 45 W versus 125 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1744 versus Intel Socket 1851
• Codename: Raptor Lake-H versus Arrow Lake Refresh
• Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: not recorded versus 17,800 million
• Die size: not recorded versus 243 mm²
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared versus 30 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 versus DDR5 only
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded versus 115.2 GB/s
• ECC memory: false versus true
• PCIe: Gen 5, 8 lanes versus Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 48EU versus N/A
• Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop
• Multiplier unlocked: false versus true
• Part number: SRQ6RQ5MN versus SA4V3

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity about the performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all 17 recorded victories. The Core 5 210H records zero wins. The average benchmark score of 66159 for the Ultra 5 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5's 24872 average places it in the 77th percentile.

The nearest rivals for each processor contextualize their positions. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits within 1% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (which scores 66855, a 1% delta) and is slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914, a 0.4% delta). The Core 5 210H trades within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (24822, a 0.2% delta) and is 0.3% behind the Intel Core i7-11850H (24935). This placement indicates that the Core 5 210H is competitive within its mobile segment, but the Ultra 5 operates in a higher performance tier entirely.

The architectural advantages of the Ultra 5, including the 3 nm process, 30 MB L3 cache, and 18-core configuration, translate directly into the benchmark results. The Core 5 210H's 45 W TDP reflects its mobile design intent, while the Ultra 5's 125 W TDP enables sustained high performance in desktop environments. The lack of integrated graphics on the Ultra 5 indicates it requires a discrete GPU, while the Core 5's Iris Xe Graphics 48EU provides basic display output capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in every usage category supported by the data. Multi-threaded productivity workloads, represented by Cinebench multi-core tests, show a 59.2% to 72.3% advantage. Single-threaded responsiveness, measured by Cinebench single-core and PassMark single-thread tests, shows a 24.7% to 70.6% lead. Cryptographic workloads, represented by PassMark data encryption, show a 70.5% advantage. Scientific computing, represented by PassMark floating-point math, shows a 71.8% lead. Data compression tasks show a 60.6% margin. Prime number finding, which exercises integer arithmetic, shows an 88.3% advantage. Physics simulation shows a 67.3% lead. Random string sorting shows a 65.1% advantage. Extended instruction workloads show a 68.8% gap. Integer math shows a 50% lead.

The Intel Core 5 210H does not win any benchmark category in the recorded data. Its strengths lie outside the measured tests, including its integrated Iris Xe Graphics 48EU and lower 45 W TDP, which suit compact mobile systems. Its support for DDR4 memory provides flexibility for existing memory inventories. The 8-core, 12-thread configuration with a 4.80 GHz boost clock delivers respectable performance for its segment, as shown by its 77th percentile ranking. However, the database records no scenario where the Core 5 210H outperforms the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus in any of the 17 compared benchmarks. Users requiring the highest measured performance should select the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, while those needing integrated graphics and mobile compatibility should consider the Core 5 210H based on its specifications rather than benchmark wins.