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

FAQ

Q: How do the core counts differ between the Intel Core 7 160HL and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core 7 160HL supports hyper-threading, giving it more threads than cores, whereas the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus reaches a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the Core 7 160HL's maximum of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also has a substantially higher base clock at 4.20 GHz compared to 2.50 GHz.

Q: What are the process node and foundry differences?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size. The Core 7 160HL uses Intel's 10 nm process and has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: Only the Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 exclusively, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Core 7 160HL includes Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A). This means the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus requires a discrete GPU.

Q: How do the processors compare in benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66,159. The Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores and is in the 50th percentile.

The Verdict

The recorded data strongly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus for virtually all compute-intensive tasks. Its average benchmark score of 66,159 places it in the 93rd percentile, while the Core 7 160HL has no benchmark scores recorded and sits at the 50th percentile. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus outperforms its nearest rival, the Intel Core 9 273PQE, by 0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D by 0.4%, based on average scores of 66,099 and 65,914 respectively.

For users building a system where integrated graphics matter, the Core 7 160HL is the only choice, as it includes Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no iGPU, so a discrete graphics card is mandatory. The Core 7 160HL also supports DDR4 memory, which can be relevant for those reusing existing memory modules, and its 45 W TDP indicates a much lower power envelope compared to the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus's 125 W.

However, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the clear performance leader. Its 18 cores, higher clocks, newer 3 nm TSMC process, and larger cache hierarchy deliver superior results across all benchmark categories. Its launch MSRP is $184. The Core 7 160HL is a sensible pick only when integrated graphics and DDR4 support are non-negotiable requirements, and when the workload is light enough that the 50th percentile performance tier suffices.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates every recorded benchmark category. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 42,718 points, a figure that places it ahead of the Intel Core 9 273PQE (average score 66,099, delta 0.1%) and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (average score 65,914, delta 0.4%) in the overall standings. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 6,030 points, while the R20 multi-core and single-core scores are 17,941 and 2,532 respectively. The R15 multi-core score is 4,305 and single-core is 607.

In PassMark tests, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus shows strong results across the board. Multi-thread performance scores 50,146, while single-thread performance scores 4,698. Floating point math delivers 159,824, integer math scores 123,030, and extended instructions (SIMD) reach 42,880. Data compression scores 553,155 and data encryption scores 41,292. Random string sorting achieves 67,209, physics scores 3,183, and prime number finding scores 452.

The Core 7 160HL has no benchmark entries in the database, meaning no direct head-to-head numbers exist for comparison. The data shows a total of 17 recorded benchmark scores for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, all of which contribute to its 93rd percentile standing. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus are the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (delta -1%), AMD EPYC 4465P (delta -1.1%), Intel Core 9 273PQE (delta 0.1%), and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (delta 0.4%). These delta percentages indicate the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus trades blows with the top performers in its class, slightly ahead of two and slightly behind two.

Specification Differences

The core and thread configuration differs significantly. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 4.20 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.30 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. TDP is 125 W for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and 45 W for the Core 7 160HL, a difference of 80 W.

Socket compatibility is another major difference. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Core 7 160HL uses Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 7 160HL is locked. Memory support differs: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports only DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 7 160HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5. ECC memory is supported by the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus but not by the Core 7 160HL.

PCIe lanes also differ. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 160HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are absent on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, whereas the Core 7 160HL includes Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a part number of SA4V3 and a launch MSRP of $184, while the Core 7 160HL has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Core 7 160HL is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and belongs to the Core 7 generation. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is based on Arrow Lake Refresh, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and belongs to the Ultra 5 generation. The process nodes are markedly different: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the Core 7 160HL uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus records 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 7 160HL has no transistor or die size data recorded.

Cache hierarchy shows the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus with larger allocations at every level. Its L1 cache is 192 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core, and L3 is 30 MB shared. The Core 7 160HL has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The L1 difference is 112 KB per core, L2 is 1 MB per core, and L3 is 6 MB in favor of the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core 7 160HL. The production status for both is Active, with release dates of 2024-04-07 for the Core 7 160HL and 2026-03-10 for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in every measured performance category. Its 18 cores and higher clocks deliver strong multi-threaded throughput, as shown by the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,718 and PassMark multi-thread score of 50,146. Single-thread performance is also superior, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6,030 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,698. The larger cache (30 MB L3 versus 24 MB L3) and newer 3 nm process contribute to these results. The 93rd percentile ranking confirms its position among the top CPUs in the database.

The Core 7 160HL wins in areas that do not involve raw compute benchmarks. It includes Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, making it suitable for systems without a discrete GPU. It supports DDR4 memory, which is relevant for builds that reuse older memory modules. Its 45 W TDP is significantly lower than the 125 W TDP of the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, indicating a more power-efficient design for compact or low-power systems. The Core 7 160HL also uses Socket 1700, which may be compatible with existing motherboards in that ecosystem.

For workloads like data compression (PassMark score 553,155), encryption (41,292), and floating point math (159,824), the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the clear choice. For scenarios requiring integrated graphics, DDR4 support, or minimal power draw, the Core 7 160HL is the only option with those features. The data shows no benchmark wins for the Core 7 160HL, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus accumulates wins across all 17 recorded tests. The nearest rival comparison for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus shows it within 1.1% of the AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, confirming its competitive standing against other high-end processors.