Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Intel Core 7 240H and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus occupy different corners of the Intel product stack, one a mobile processor for laptops and the other a desktop processor for high-performance systems. The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the reasons behind that hierarchy and the specific workloads where each chip excels are worth examining closely.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 240H does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. The recorded data shows 17 wins for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and 0 for the Core 7 240H. This is a decisive sweep across all tested workloads, from single-threaded tasks to multi-core rendering.

However, the use-case split is not simply about raw performance. The Core 7 240H is designed for mobile systems with a 45 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop part with a 125 W TDP. The Core 7 240H operates within a power envelope that is nearly one-third of the desktop chip. The data shows that the mobile chip still delivers substantial performance in its class, with an average benchmark score of 31483 and a percentile rank of 82 among all CPUs. The desktop chip reaches the 93rd percentile.

The Core 7 240H includes Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units, making it a complete package for a laptop that needs integrated graphics. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics at all, as indicated by the N/A entry. That means any system using the desktop chip must have a discrete graphics card. The mobile chip can function in a laptop without one.

For workloads that rely on the CPU alone, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates every category. For mobile computing where power consumption and integrated graphics matter, the Core 7 240H is the only viable option in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and are built on different manufacturing processes. The Core 7 240H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, and belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, belongs to the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation, and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 10 nm versus 3 nm.

The Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads, which indicates a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, with no hyper-threading on any of its cores. The desktop chip has more physical cores but fewer threads per core.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 7 240H 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 250KF Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The desktop chip offers larger caches at every level.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 7 240H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a rated memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The mobile chip has no listed memory bandwidth figure.

Other differences include PCIe lanes. The Core 7 240H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. ECC memory support is present on the desktop chip but not on the mobile chip. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the Core 7 240H does not.

The desktop chip also reports a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The mobile chip has no such figures in the database, a result of its older, denser process and integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The performance gap is largest in multi-core rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 against 15764 for the Core 7 240H, a delta of 63.1 percent in favor of the desktop chip. The single-core gap in the same test is even more pronounced in relative terms: 6030 versus 1719, a 71.5 percent deficit for the mobile chip.

Cinebench R20 shows a similar pattern. The multi-core score for the desktop chip is 17941, which is 52.3 percent ahead of the mobile chip's 8562. Single-core in R20 also shows 2532 versus 1208, again a 52.3 percent difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core gives 4305 for the desktop chip versus 2360 for the mobile chip, a 45.2 percent gap, while single-core in R15 is 607 versus 249, a 59 percent gap.

The PassMark suite reveals where the desktop chip's advantages are largest and smallest. The biggest single difference is in the find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 452 against 102, a 77.4 percent lead. Data encryption shows a 63.3 percent gap, with 41292 versus 15155. Floating point math produces 159824 versus 58905, a 63.1 percent lead. Extended instructions show 42880 versus 16897, a 60.6 percent gap.

The smallest gap in the entire comparison is in PassMark single-thread performance. The desktop chip scores 4698 against 3782 for the mobile chip, a 19.5 percent lead. This is the only test where the Core 7 240H comes within 20 percent of its rival. Integer math also shows a relatively modest gap of 34.7 percent, with 123030 versus 80396.

Multi-threaded PassMark results give 50146 for the desktop chip against 23975 for the mobile chip, a 52.2 percent gap. Physics tests show 3183 versus 1723, a 45.9 percent gap. Random string sorting shows 67209 versus 28866, a 57.1 percent gap. Data compression shows 553155 versus 271774, a 50.9 percent gap.

The average benchmark score tells a broader story. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus averages 66159 across all benchmarks, more than double the 31483 average of the Core 7 240H. The nearest rivals for the mobile chip include the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31508, both within 0.1 percent. The desktop chip's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855, with the 250KF Plus sitting between them.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus outperforms the Intel Core 7 240H in every single recorded test, with advantages ranging from 19.5 percent in single-threaded PassMark to 77.4 percent in prime number calculation. The desktop chip delivers more than double the average benchmark score of the mobile chip.

The Core 7 240H exists in a different market segment entirely. It is a mobile processor with a 45 W TDP, integrated Iris Xe Graphics, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. These features make it suitable for laptops where power efficiency and integrated graphics are essential. The 10-core, 16-thread configuration and 5.20 GHz boost clock provide solid performance for a mobile part, and its 82nd percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms that it is not a weak processor in absolute terms.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop processor with an 18-core, 18-thread configuration, a 5.30 GHz boost clock, and a 125 W TDP. It requires a discrete graphics card, supports ECC memory, and has an unlocked multiplier. Its 93rd percentile ranking reflects its position near the top of the desktop CPU hierarchy. The 3 nm process node and TSMC foundry give it a manufacturing advantage over the older 10 nm mobile chip.

The choice between these two processors is dictated by the target system form factor. A laptop must use the Core 7 240H because the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses a desktop socket, Intel Socket 1851, and has no integrated graphics. A desktop system can use the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which offers dramatically higher performance across all tested workloads. The data shows no scenario where the mobile chip wins on performance, but its feature set makes it the only choice for mobile designs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores, while the Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 240H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by 77.4 percent.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 240H does not.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has an average benchmark score of 31483, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average score of 66159.

Q: Which processor has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Core 7 240H does not.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 240H | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 10 | 18 |

| Threads | 16 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Generation | Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 64EU | N/A |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | $502 | $184 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2024-12-17 | 2026-03-10 |

| Part Number | SRQ6TQ5ML | SA4V3 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 82 | 93 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 31483 | 66159 |