Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison
Intel Core 7 250H
Core Ultra 5 336H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core 7 250H records an average benchmark score of 35728, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H averages 34485, placing it in the 84th percentile. The difference between the two averages is approximately 1243 points.
Q: How do the two chips compare in raw thread count?
A: The Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 5 has two more physical cores, but the Core 7 features hyper-threading, giving it four more logical threads.
Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?
A: The Core Ultra 5 336H dominates in Cinebench single-core tests. It scores 3387 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1931 for the Core 7 250H, a 43% advantage. However, the Core 7 250H wins PassMark's single-thread test at 4148 versus 4013, a 3.4% margin.
Q: What about multi-threaded workloads?
A: Results are mixed. The Core Ultra 5 336H wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 23991 versus 16561, a 31% lead. But the Core 7 250H wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with 3147 versus 2418, a 30.1% lead. PassMark multi-thread slightly favors the Ultra 5, 28545 versus 27030.
Q: Which processor has the more advanced manufacturing process?
A: The Core Ultra 5 336H is built on a 3 nm process, while the Core 7 250H uses a 10 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the Ultra 5's process is significantly more advanced.
Q: What are the integrated graphics solutions?
A: The Core 7 250H integrates Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core Ultra 5 336H integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not include comparative graphics benchmark results for these two iGPU solutions.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core 7 250H claims victory in 5 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins 12. The split reveals distinct workload preferences.
The Core 7 250H excels in integer-heavy and data-processing tasks. Its PassMark integer math score of 99100 is 59.7% higher than the Ultra 5's 62070. Similarly, data compression favors the Core 7, 303269 versus 280340, an 8.2% edge. These results suggest the Core 7's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz and its thread-heavy configuration provide an advantage in workloads that scale with frequency and logical thread count.
The Core 7 also wins both PassMark single-thread recordings, scoring 4148 versus 4013, a 3.4% margin. This is notable because the Ultra 5 has a substantial lead in Cinebench single-core tests, indicating that the two benchmark suites measure different aspects of single-thread performance.
The Core Ultra 5 336H dominates in most other categories. Its largest wins come in Cinebench R23 single-core (43% ahead) and PassMark find prime numbers (64.5% ahead). Extended instructions, floating-point math, and physics simulations all favor the Ultra 5 by margins between 21% and 32%. Data encryption shows a 14.5% advantage for the Ultra 5, and multi-thread workloads in both Cinebench R20 and PassMark favor it, though by smaller margins of 3.8% and 5.3% respectively.
For users prioritizing integer math, compression workloads, and certain single-thread tests, the Core 7 250H is the stronger choice. For floating-point operations, encryption, extended instruction sets, and most modern multi-core render workloads, the Core Ultra 5 336H delivers clearly superior results.
Architecture Differences
The two processors represent fundamentally different Intel architectures. The Core 7 250H is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H mobile variant, and belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses Panther Lake architecture, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Panther Lake-H generation.
The manufacturing process differs significantly. The Core 7 250H uses a 10 nm node, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm node. This process advantage helps explain the Ultra 5's efficiency and its lower 25 W TDP compared to the Core 7's 45 W TDP, despite the Ultra 5 having more physical cores.
Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 7 250H 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 336H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 provides more per-core cache at the L1 and L2 levels but less total L3.
Memory support diverges as well. The Core 7 250H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the database records a memory bandwidth figure of 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 5, while no bandwidth figure is recorded for the Core 7.
PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 7 250H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 336H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 5 provides four additional PCIe lanes.
Integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not include GPU benchmark comparisons.
Sockets also differ: the Core 7 250H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540. These are not interchangeable platforms.
Specification Differences
The following specifications differ between the Intel Core 7 250H and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H:
| Specification | Intel Core 7 250H | Intel Core Ultra 5 336H |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 14 | 16 |
| Threads | 20 | 16 |
| Base clock | 2.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |
| Boost clock | 5.40 GHz | 4.60 GHz |
| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |
| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 2540 |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |
| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Panther Lake |
| Generation | Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) | Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) |
| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |
| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |
| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 115.2 GB/s |
| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |
| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |
| Release date | 2024-12-17 | 2026-01-04 |
| Launch MSRP | $502 | Not recorded |
| Part number | SRQ6UQ5MK | SA4RD |
Both processors are active in production, target the mobile market, have locked multipliers, do not support ECC memory, and are manufactured by Intel. Neither has recorded transistor counts or die sizes in the database.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The recorded benchmark data shows a clear split between the two processors, with the Core Ultra 5 336H taking the majority of test wins but the Core 7 250H holding specific strengths.
Cinebench R23 multi-core: The Core Ultra 5 336H delivers its most significant multi-core victory here, scoring 23991 against the Core 7's 16561. This 31% advantage likely reflects the Ultra 5's 16 physical cores and newer architecture, which compensate for its lower boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 5.40 GHz.
Cinebench R23 single-core: The Ultra 5 wins by the largest single-core margin recorded, 3387 versus 1931, a 43% lead. This is a striking result given the Core 7's much higher boost clock, indicating the Panther Lake architecture's per-core efficiency at 3 nm far exceeds Raptor Lake's at 10 nm.
Cinebench R15 multi-core: The Core 7 250H reverses the multi-core trend in this older test, winning 3147 versus 2418, a 30.1% margin. This suggests the Core 7's 20 threads and high frequency help in workloads that do not scale perfectly with physical core count.
Cinebench R15 single-core: The Ultra 5 wins again, 341 versus 298, a 12.6% advantage. The margin is smaller than in R23, but the direction is consistent.
Cinebench R20 multi-core: The Ultra 5 wins narrowly, 10076 versus 9697, a 3.8% margin. This sits between the R15 result (Core 7 wins) and the R23 result (Ultra 5 wins by 31%), showing how workload scaling changes across Cinebench versions.
Cinebench R20 single-core: The Ultra 5 wins 1422 versus 1368, again by 3.8%. The single-core margins grow from 12.6% in R15 to 43% in R23, suggesting the newer architecture's advantage increases with test complexity.
PassMark integer math: The Core 7 250H records its largest win, 99100 versus 62070, a 59.7% advantage. This is the single biggest delta in either direction across all tests. The Core 7's high frequency and hyper-threading appear highly effective for integer operations.
PassMark floating-point math: The Ultra 5 wins 82415 versus 65094, a 21% margin. This aligns with the architecture's strengths in FP-heavy workloads.
PassMark data compression: The Core 7 wins 303269 versus 280340, an 8.2% edge. Compression workloads often benefit from thread count and cache, and the Core 7's 24 MB L3 cache may contribute here.
PassMark data encryption: The Ultra 5 wins 21291 versus 18206, a 14.5% margin. Encryption workloads favor the newer architecture's instruction efficiency.
PassMark extended instructions: The Ultra 5 wins 24542 versus 17318, a 29.4% lead. This test measures SIMD and specialized instruction throughput, where Panther Lake's 3 nm process provides clear benefits.
PassMark find prime numbers: The Ultra 5 wins by the largest percentage margin in any test, 299 versus 106, a 64.5% advantage. This is a highly serial, integer-heavy workload, but the Ultra 5's per-core efficiency dominates.
PassMark physics: The Ultra 5 wins 2682 versus 1824, a 32% margin. Physics simulations typically leverage floating-point and multi-thread performance.
PassMark multi-thread: The Ultra 5 wins 28545 versus 27030, a 5.3% margin. Despite having fewer threads, the Ultra 5's 16 cores outperform the Core 7's 20 threads in this aggregate test.
PassMark random string sorting: The Ultra 5 wins narrowly, 34402 versus 34136, a 0.8% margin. This is the closest result in the dataset.
PassMark single-thread: The Core 7 wins both recordings at 4148 versus 4013, a 3.4% margin. This contradicts the Cinebench single-core results, highlighting that PassMark's single-thread test measures different operations that favor the Core 7's 5.40 GHz boost clock.
Overall, the data shows the Core Ultra 5 336H as the more versatile processor, winning 12 of 17 comparisons and excelling in modern render workloads, floating-point math, and encryption. The Core 7 250H remains competitive in integer math, compression, and PassMark's specific single-thread test, making it suitable for workloads that favor frequency and thread count over architectural efficiency.