Intel Core 7 150HL vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Intel Core 7 150HL and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus are two desktop processors from Intel that serve different segments of the market. The Core 7 150HL operates on the Raptor Lake-PS architecture with a 10 nm process node, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename with a 3 nm process node manufactured by TSMC. The database contains benchmark results for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, but no benchmark scores are recorded for the Core 7 150HL. This analysis relies on the recorded measurements for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the specification differences between the two processors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers strong performance across all recorded benchmark tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 4640 points, which reflects its 18 cores and 18 threads. The single-core score in Cinebench R15 is 328 points. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score reaches 18442 points, while the single-core score is 2603 points. The Cinebench R23 results show a multicore score of 30867 points and a single-core score of 2261 points. These scores place the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, indicating strong overall performance relative to other processors.

PassMark tests provide additional insight. The data compression score is 568721 points, which is notably high and suggests efficient handling of compression workloads. Data encryption scores 42144 points, while extended instructions score 44565 points. The find prime numbers test yields 486 points, which is lower in absolute terms but reflects the specific nature of that workload. Floating point math scores 162692 points, and integer math scores 125091 points. The multithread score is 51596 points, and the physics score is 3494 points. Random string sorting scores 69090 points. Single-thread performance is recorded at 4757 points.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 66855 points. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD EPYC 4465P with an average score of 66925 points and a delta of -0.1%, the Intel Xeon 6515P with an average score of 67006 points and a delta of -0.2%, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX with an average score of 67469 points and a delta of -0.9%, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus with an average score of 66159 points and a delta of 1.1%. This means the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus trails the EPYC 4465P by 0.1%, the Xeon 6515P by 0.2%, and the Core Ultra 9 275HX by 0.9%, while leading the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus by 1.1%. The differences are small, indicating that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits in a competitive performance band among these processors.

The core count difference between the two processors is significant. The Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Core 7 150HL supports hyperthreading, which gives it 20 threads from 14 cores, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has no hyperthreading, so its 18 cores correspond to 18 threads. In multithreaded workloads, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has more physical cores, which can be an advantage in tasks that scale with core count. The Core 7 150HL has a higher thread count than core count, which may benefit workloads that leverage simultaneous multithreading.

Clock speeds differ as well. The Core 7 150HL has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The higher base clock of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus suggests better sustained performance in lightly threaded tasks, while the boost clock difference is 0.30 GHz in favor of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus shows clear strengths in multithreaded performance based on its benchmark scores. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 30867 points and the PassMark multithread score of 51596 points indicate that it can handle parallel workloads effectively. The 18 physical cores provide a foundation for tasks such as video rendering, 3D modeling, and scientific simulations that use many threads. The 93rd percentile ranking confirms that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus outperforms most CPUs in the database across the recorded tests.

The Core 7 150HL has advantages in power consumption and platform compatibility. Its TDP is 45 watts, compared to 125 watts for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. This lower power draw makes the Core 7 150HL suitable for systems where thermal output and energy consumption are important factors. The Core 7 150HL uses the Intel Socket 1700, which is an established platform, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Intel Socket 1851. The Core 7 150HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5. This gives the Core 7 150HL more flexibility in memory selection, as DDR4 modules are widely available and can reduce system cost in some configurations.

The Core 7 150HL also has a higher thread count relative to core count, with 20 threads from 14 cores. In workloads that benefit from hyperthreading, such as certain database operations or virtual machine hosting, the Core 7 150HL may demonstrate competitive performance despite having fewer physical cores. However, no benchmark scores are recorded for the Core 7 150HL in the database, so a direct comparison of measured performance is not possible.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a higher L3 cache of 30 MB shared, compared to 24 MB shared for the Core 7 150HL. The per-core L1 cache is 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and 80 KB per core for the Core 7 150HL. The per-core L2 cache is 3 MB per core for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and 2 MB per core for the Core 7 150HL. These larger cache sizes may benefit the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in workloads that have high data reuse or require frequent access to working sets that fit in cache.

FAQ

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts between the two processors?

A: The Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Core 7 150HL uses hyperthreading to achieve 20 threads, whereas the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus does not support hyperthreading.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which is higher than the 5.00 GHz boost clock of the Core 7 150HL.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus?

A: The average benchmark score is 66855 points, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus compare to its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 4465P?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average score of 66855 points, while the AMD EPYC 4465P has an average score of 66925 points. The delta is -0.1%, meaning the EPYC 4465P is marginally ahead.

Q: Does the Core 7 150HL support DDR4 memory?

A: Yes, the Core 7 150HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Core 7 150HL has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts.

Specification Differences

The Core 7 150HL and Core Ultra 5 250K Plus differ in several key specifications. The Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The base clock of the Core 7 150HL is 2.40 GHz, and the boost clock is 5.00 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The TDP is 45 watts for the Core 7 150HL and 125 watts for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

The socket types are different: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 7 150HL and Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The process nodes differ, with the Core 7 150HL using a 10 nm process from Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 7 150HL has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Memory support differs: the Core 7 150HL supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5. Both have dual-channel memory buses, but the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 7 150HL has no memory bandwidth figure. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 150HL does not.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Core 7 150HL supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are different: the Core 7 150HL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 7 150HL does not. The release dates are 2024-04-07 for the Core 7 150HL and 2026-03-10 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199, while the Core 7 150HL has no recorded launch MSRP. The part number for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is SA4UZ, while the Core 7 150HL has an unknown part number.

Architecture Differences

The Core 7 150HL is based on the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename within the Core Ultra Series 2. The generation labels differ: the Core 7 150HL is listed as Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS), and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is listed as Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake). The process node is 10 nm for the Core 7 150HL, produced by Intel, and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, produced by TSMC.

Cache configurations differ notably. The Core 7 150HL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. These larger cache sizes on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus may improve performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², which are not recorded for the Core 7 150HL. The memory bandwidth of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 115.2 GB/s, while no such figure exists for the Core 7 150HL. ECC memory support is present on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus but absent on the Core 7 150HL. PCIe generation and lane counts differ, with Gen 4 and 8 lanes on the Core 7 150HL versus Gen 5 and 20 lanes on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The integrated graphics units also differ, with 96 execution units on the Iris Xe Graphics for the Core 7 150HL and 64 execution units on the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the stronger performer in the benchmark suite, with an average score of 66855 points and a 93rd percentile ranking. Its 18 cores, higher clock speeds, larger caches, and 3 nm process node contribute to its measured performance. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 30867 points and single-core score of 2261 points indicate solid capabilities across both multithreaded and single-threaded tasks. The PassMark results, including a multithread score of 51596 points and a single-thread score of 4757 points, reinforce this picture.

The Core 7 150HL has no recorded benchmark scores, so its performance cannot be quantified from the database. However, its specification differences suggest different use cases. The 45 watt TDP makes it a lower-power option, and its support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory provides memory flexibility. The Intel Socket 1700 platform may be more accessible in existing systems, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus requires the newer Socket 1851. The Core 7 150HL also has a higher thread count than core count, which could be beneficial in specific hyperthreaded workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is positioned for users who prioritize maximum performance in the recorded benchmarks. Its 18 physical cores and higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz deliver measured results that place it near the top of the database. The ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity add features that may matter for certain professional or server-like applications. The unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking, which the Core 7 150HL does not support.

The Core 7 150HL is more suited for systems where power consumption and platform compatibility are primary concerns. Its 45 watt TDP is significantly lower than the 125 watt TDP of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The dual memory support for DDR4 and DDR5 could allow for lower-cost memory configurations. The lack of benchmark data means its performance is not directly comparable, but its architectural heritage from Raptor Lake suggests it serves as a mid-range option.

The database indicates that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the choice for applications that depend on multithreaded throughput, given its measured scores and higher core count. The Core 7 150HL may suit environments that require lower thermal output or that rely on older memory standards. The data does not support a claim of superiority for the Core 7 150HL in any measured benchmark, as no scores are available. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers verified performance across all tests, while the Core 7 150HL remains an unquantified alternative with different specification trade-offs.