Intel Core 7 160HL vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Intel Core 7 160HL and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus occupy different tiers of Intel’s desktop lineup, and the benchmark data reflects a clear performance hierarchy. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, an Arrow Lake Refresh part, delivers substantially higher multi-threaded and single-threaded scores than the Raptor Lake-based Core 7 160HL. The database shows the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scoring 30,867 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence of data for the Core 7 160HL means all quantitative performance comparisons rely on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s results and its position relative to other CPUs. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus achieves a 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, indicating that it outperforms the vast majority of processors in the database, whereas the Core 7 160HL sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also has an average benchmark score of 66,855, placing it within a tight competitive cluster.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus demonstrates strong multi-threaded performance across several Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it records a score of 30,867, and in Cinebench R20 multi-core it reaches 18,442. The single-core results are equally notable, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 2,261 and Cinebench R20 single-core at 2,603. Older Cinebench R15 tests show a multi-core score of 4,640 and a single-core score of 328. These figures establish a baseline for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, but no corresponding scores exist for the Core 7 160HL, so direct head-to-head percentage deltas cannot be computed from the database.

PassMark tests provide a broader view of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s capabilities. The multi-thread score is 51,596, while single-thread performance reaches 4,757. Integer math scores 125,091, floating-point math scores 162,692, and extended instructions score 44,565. Data compression results show 568,721, data encryption records 42,144, and random string sorting hits 69,090. The physics test scores 3,494, and the find prime numbers test scores 486. These results indicate a processor that handles both integer-heavy and floating-point-heavy workloads with considerable headroom. The Core 7 160HL has no recorded PassMark scores, so the database offers no basis for a quantitative comparison between the two processors in these workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow performance band. The AMD EPYC 4465P has an average score of 66,925, which is 0.1% higher than the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s 66,855. The Intel Xeon 6515P scores 67,006, a 0.2% advantage. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 67,469, 0.9% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 66,159, which is 1.1% lower. This clustering suggests that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers performance comparable to server-class and higher-tier mobile processors, despite being a mainstream desktop part. The Core 7 160HL has no nearest rivals listed, reinforcing its lack of benchmark presence.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The Core 7 160HL uses Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on Intel’s 10 nm process node and fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, and is built on a 3 nm process node by TSMC. The manufacturing transition from Intel’s 10 nm node to TSMC’s 3 nm node represents a significant generational shift, likely contributing to the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s higher efficiency and performance characteristics.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Core 7 160HL’s thread count exceeds its core count, indicating support for simultaneous multithreading, whereas the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio. This architectural choice means the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus relies on raw core count rather than multithreading to achieve its multi-threaded performance. Clock speeds also favor the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to the Core 7 160HL’s 2.50 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies differ across all levels. The Core 7 160HL 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. The larger per-core caches on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus likely reduce memory latency and improve performance in cache-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also includes a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², details not available for the Core 7 160HL.

Memory support marks another divergence. The Core 7 160HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5, also in dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 160HL does not. PCIe capabilities also differ, with the Core 7 160HL offering PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. This gives the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus both a newer PCIe generation and more available lanes for expansion.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 160HL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core 7 160HL has more graphics execution units, which may provide an advantage in integrated graphics workloads, though the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s newer architecture could offset this difference. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Core 7 160HL is locked. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also has a TDP of 125 W, compared to the Core 7 160HL’s 45 W, indicating a much higher power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher core count?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores, while the Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 160HL does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5 support.

Q: Which processor has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 7 160HL does not.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 4465P has an average score of 66,925, which is 0.1% higher than the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s 66,855.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Core 7 160HL uses a 10 nm process node from Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Base clock speeds are 2.50 GHz for the Core 7 160HL and 4.20 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz and 5.30 GHz, respectively. TDP ratings are 45 W for the Core 7 160HL and 125 W for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core 7 160HL uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851.

The Core 7 160HL is built on Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process node from Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arrow Lake Refresh with a 3 nm process node from TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while these figures are not recorded for the Core 7 160HL. Cache configurations differ, with the Core 7 160HL offering 80 KB L1, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus offers 192 KB L1, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus records a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 7 160HL has no recorded bandwidth figure. ECC memory support is present on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus but absent on the Core 7 160HL. PCIe lanes differ, with the Core 7 160HL offering Gen 4 with 8 lanes and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 96EU on the Core 7 160HL and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 7 160HL does not. Release dates are April 2024 for the Core 7 160HL and March 2026 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199, while the Core 7 160HL has no recorded launch price.

The Verdict

The database shows a clear performance gulf between these two processors, though it is defined entirely by the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s recorded benchmarks. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus achieves a 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 66,855, while the Core 7 160HL sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero. Users requiring documented multi-threaded performance, as shown by the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30,867 and PassMark multi-thread score of 51,596, would favor the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Its 18 cores, 5.30 GHz boost clock, 30 MB L3 cache, PCIe Gen 5 support, and ECC memory capability make it the more feature-rich processor on paper.

The Core 7 160HL offers its own advantages, including a much lower 45 W TDP, DDR4 compatibility, and a larger integrated graphics unit with 96 execution units. For systems constrained by power or requiring legacy memory support, the Core 7 160HL presents a viable alternative, though the database provides no benchmark scores to validate its performance. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s unlocked multiplier, newer 3 nm process node, and higher clock speeds position it as the superior performer in the recorded data. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also sits within 1.1% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and within 0.9% of the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, confirming its competitive standing. Users prioritizing documented performance, modern connectivity, and overclocking capability should select the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, while those needing lower power consumption and broader memory compatibility could consider the Core 7 160HL.