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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Core 7 150HL versus the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The `headToHeadBenchmarks` field is empty, and the Intel Core 7 150HL has no recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals. This makes a direct comparison impossible from the recorded data alone. However, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a substantial set of benchmark results, while the Core 7 150HL has none. The absence of scores for the Core 7 150HL is itself a notable finding: the database shows zero benchmark entries for that processor, meaning no performance data exists for it in the current dataset.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, by contrast, has 17 recorded benchmark results. Its average benchmark score is 66159, placing it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. This is a very high position. The Core 7 150HL sits at the 50th percentile, but with an average benchmark score of zero, this percentile is not based on any actual measured performance; it is a placeholder reflecting the lack of data.

Since the Core 7 150HL has no benchmark results, the only way to interpret the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is against its nearest rivals. The database lists four nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 66099, which is 0.1% lower than the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D scores 65914, which is 0.4% lower. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 66855, which is 1% higher. The AMD EPYC 4465P scores 66925, which is 1.1% higher. These deltas are small, all within a band of about 2%. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus therefore sits in a tight cluster with these four chips, slightly behind the Ultra 5 250K Plus and the EPYC 4465P, and slightly ahead of the Core 9 273PQE and the Ryzen 9 7950X3D.

The individual benchmark scores for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus reveal its strengths. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 42718. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 17941, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 4305. Single-core scores are also strong: Cinebench R23 single-core is 6030, Cinebench R20 single-core is 2532, and Cinebench R15 single-core is 607. PassMark results show a multi-thread score of 50146, a single-thread score of 4698, integer math at 123030, floating-point math at 159824, data compression at 553155, data encryption at 41292, extended instructions at 42880, find prime numbers at 452, physics at 3183, and random string sorting at 67209. These are the only performance data points available for either processor.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: for any workload where a benchmark score exists, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the only processor with measurable performance. The Intel Core 7 150HL cannot be evaluated from the recorded data because it has no benchmark entries, no average score, and no nearest rivals. The 50th percentile assigned to the Core 7 150HL is not backed by any measured results, so it should not be interpreted as a performance estimate.

A buyer choosing between these two processors based strictly on the database would select the Ultra 5 250KF Plus, but only because it is the sole option with data. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus ranks at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66159. Its nearest rivals are all within 1.1% of its score, placing it among strong performers. The Core 7 150HL has no recorded scores, so no performance claim can be made for it.

The Ultra 5 250KF Plus also differs in production status: both processors are listed as Active, so availability is not a differentiator. The Core 7 150HL was released on 2024-04-07, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a release date of 2026-03-10. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a launch MSRP of $184, while the Core 7 150HL has no launch MSRP listed. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 7 150HL does not. These are factual differences, but they do not translate into benchmark performance without measurement data.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 150HL have any benchmark results in the database?

A: No. The Core 7 150HL has an empty benchmarks list, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals. The database records no performance measurements for it.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average score of 66159. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is 0.1% lower, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is 0.4% lower, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 1% higher, and the AMD EPYC 4465P is 1.1% higher.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 150HL is at the 50th percentile, but this is not based on any recorded benchmark score, as its average score is 0.

Q: Which processor has a higher core count?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core 7 150HL has more threads than cores due to hyperthreading, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has equal core and thread counts.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus?

A: The launch MSRP of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is $184. The Intel Core 7 150HL has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 150HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports only DDR5 memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Core 7 150HL uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads; the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Base clocks differ: the Core 7 150HL runs at 2.40 GHz, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 4.20 GHz. Boost clocks also differ: 5.00 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. Thermal design power is 45 watts for the Core 7 150HL and 125 watts for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Cache configurations are different. 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 Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support differs as noted: the Core 7 150HL supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports only DDR5. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s; the Core 7 150HL has no memory bandwidth listed. ECC memory support differs: the Core 7 150HL does not support ECC, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus does.

PCIe lanes differ. The Core 7 150HL has PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: the Core 7 150HL includes Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). The multiplier is locked on the Core 7 150HL and unlocked on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The part number for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is SA4V3; the Core 7 150HL has a part number listed as unknown. Release dates differ: 2024-04-07 for the Core 7 150HL, 2026-03-10 for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectures and manufacturing processes. The Core 7 150HL is based on Raptor Lake, with the codename Raptor Lake-PS. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus is based on Arrow Lake Refresh, with the codename Arrow Lake Refresh. The Core 7 150HL uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has recorded transistor and die size data: 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². The Core 7 150HL has no transistor count or die size listed.

The generation labels confirm the architectural gap. The Core 7 150HL is listed as Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS). The Ultra 5 250KF Plus is listed as Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake), part of the Core Ultra Series 2. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses a TSMC process node, while the Core 7 150HL uses Intel's own foundry. This is a significant difference: the two chips are built on different process nodes by different foundries.

Core architecture also differs in structure. The Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a mix of performance and efficiency cores with hyperthreading on some cores. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, indicating no hyperthreading. The per-core cache sizes are larger on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus: 192 KB L1 per core versus 80 KB, and 3 MB L2 per core versus 2 MB. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB versus 24 MB. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus also supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 150HL does not. The Core 7 150HL includes integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses a newer PCIe generation (Gen 5) with more lanes (20 versus 8), and a newer socket (1851 versus 1700).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in every measurable category, because it is the only processor with recorded benchmark scores. Its 93rd percentile ranking and average score of 66159 place it among high-performing CPUs. Its nearest rivals are all within 1.1% of its score, so it sits in a competitive cluster. The chip shows particular strength in Cinebench multi-core tests: 42718 in R23, 17941 in R20, and 4305 in R15. PassMark integer math at 123030 and floating-point math at 159824 are also strong. Data compression at 553155 and random string sorting at 67209 indicate good throughput in memory-heavy tasks. Single-thread performance is solid as well, with 6030 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4698 in PassMark single-thread.

The Intel Core 7 150HL has no recorded wins, because it has no recorded benchmarks. The only advantages that can be stated from the database are specification-level. The Core 7 150HL has 20 threads versus 18, which could theoretically help in heavily threaded workloads if hyperthreading is utilized, but no benchmark data confirms this. It also supports DDR4 memory, which gives it broader memory compatibility. It has integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, so it can output video without a discrete GPU. It has a much lower TDP of 45 watts versus 125 watts, which indicates lower power draw, though no power consumption measurements are recorded. Its socket is Intel Socket 1700, which is an older platform.

The Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins on every benchmark axis where data exists: multi-core, single-core, math, compression, encryption, physics, and sorting. It also wins on specifications such as core count (18 versus 14), boost clock (5.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz), base clock (4.20 GHz versus 2.40 GHz), L3 cache (30 MB versus 24 MB), PCIe generation (Gen 5 versus Gen 4), PCIe lanes (20 versus 8), ECC support, unlocked multiplier, and a smaller process node (3 nm versus 10 nm). The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, so a system using it requires a separate graphics card. The Core 7 150HL does not require one. The Core 7 150HL also supports DDR4, which the Ultra 5 250KF Plus does not.

For use cases, the data points to the Ultra 5 250KF Plus for any workload that benefits from measured multi-core or single-core performance: rendering, math-heavy computation, data compression, and general desktop responsiveness. The Core 7 150HL is the only choice for a system that needs integrated graphics and lower power draw, but its performance cannot be quantified from the database. The absence of benchmark data for the Core 7 150HL is the defining fact of this comparison.