Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

The database comparison places the Intel Core 7 250H against the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, two mobile processors from different architectural generations. The recorded data shows a clear split in workload performance, with the Core Ultra 7 356H taking the majority of benchmark wins while the Core 7 250H retains specific advantages in integer math and single-threaded PassMark tests. The average benchmark score for the Core 7 250H is 35728, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 356H achieves an average score of 41215, placing it in the 87th percentile. This 15.4% gap in average score is reflected across most of the head-to-head results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H occur in PassMark's extended instructions and prime number tests. In the extended instructions benchmark, the Core Ultra 7 356H scores 27898 against 17318 for the Core 7 250H, a 37.9% advantage. The find prime numbers test shows an even larger relative gap, with the Core Ultra 7 356H scoring 327 against just 106 for the Core 7 250H, a 67.6% difference. These results indicate a substantial architectural efficiency improvement in the newer processor for these specific integer-heavy and instruction-set workloads.

The floating-point math benchmark also strongly favors the Core Ultra 7 356H, which scores 103128 versus 65094 for the Core 7 250H, a 36.9% lead. Similarly, the physics test shows the Core Ultra 7 356H at 2895 points, which is 37% ahead of the Core 7 250H's 1824 points. These results suggest that the Core Ultra 7 356H's newer microarchitecture delivers significantly higher throughput per clock for mathematical and physics simulation workloads.

In multi-threaded Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 7 356H maintains a consistent edge. The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows a 20.2% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 356H, scoring 12153 against 9697. The Cinebench R23 multicore test shows a 10% lead, with scores of 18395 versus 16561. The PassMark multithread test confirms this trend, with the Core Ultra 7 356H scoring 33978, which is 20.4% higher than the Core 7 250H's 27030. Data compression and encryption also favor the newer chip, with the Core Ultra 7 356H leading by 9.8% and 30.9% respectively.

Single-core performance presents a mixed picture. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, the Core Ultra 7 356H wins by margins of 1.7%, 20.2%, and 5.3% respectively. The R20 single-core result is particularly notable, with the Core Ultra 7 356H scoring 1715 against 1368, a substantial per-core advantage. However, in the PassMark single-thread test, the Core 7 250H takes the win with a score of 4148 against 4072, a 1.9% margin. This discrepancy suggests the PassMark single-thread test measures a different workload mix than the Cinebench single-core tests.

The Intel Core 7 250H claims its largest victory in the PassMark integer math test, scoring 99100 against 83111 for the Core Ultra 7 356H, a 19.2% advantage. This is the only benchmark where the Core 7 250H wins by a significant margin. The random string sorting test also goes to the Core Ultra 7 356H, which scores 40990 against 34136, a 16.7% lead. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the Core 7 250H narrowly edges out the Core Ultra 7 356H, scoring 3147 versus 3055, a 3% difference.

The overall win tally is 13 for the Core Ultra 7 356H and 4 for the Core 7 250H, including the duplicate PassMark single-thread entries. The data indicates that the Core Ultra 7 356H is the stronger all-around performer, with its advantages concentrated in high-throughput and vectorized workloads. The Core 7 250H's wins are limited to the R15 multicore test, integer math, and the PassMark single-thread test, which are narrower use cases.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H for users prioritizing multi-threaded productivity, encryption, and floating-point performance. Its 20.2% lead in Cinebench R20 multicore and 30.9% lead in data encryption indicate a clear advantage for video rendering, code compilation, and secure data handling. The 37% higher physics score also suggests better performance in simulation and scientific workloads. Users running PassMark's extended instruction sets or prime number calculations will see the most dramatic improvement, with the Core Ultra 7 356H delivering results that are 37.9% and 67.6% higher respectively.

The Intel Core 7 250H serves a specific niche. Its 19.2% advantage in integer math makes it the better choice for applications that rely heavily on integer arithmetic, such as certain database operations or financial calculations. The 1.9% lead in PassMark single-thread performance, while small, indicates that the older chip retains a slight edge in that specific single-threaded workload. However, the Core 7 250H loses the other single-core tests by margins ranging from 1.7% to 20.2%, so this advantage does not generalize across all single-threaded applications.

The average benchmark scores place the Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215, which is 15.4% higher than the Core 7 250H's 35728. The percentile rankings show the Core Ultra 7 356H at the 87th percentile versus the 85th percentile for the Core 7 250H. For most users, the Core Ultra 7 356H is the superior processor based on the recorded measurements. The Core 7 250H is only preferable for workloads specifically aligned with its integer math and PassMark single-thread strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has an average benchmark score of 41215, compared to 35728 for the Intel Core 7 250H.

Q: In which benchmark does the Intel Core 7 250H show its largest advantage?

A: The Intel Core 7 250H shows its largest advantage in the PassMark integer math test, scoring 99100 against 83111 for the Core Ultra 7 356H, a 19.2% lead.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap recorded in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 327 against 106 for the Intel Core 7 250H, a 67.6% difference.

Q: How do the processors compare in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 18395 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 10% higher than the Intel Core 7 250H's score of 16561.

Q: Which processor wins the PassMark single-thread test?

A: The Intel Core 7 250H wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4148, compared to 4072 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, a 1.9% margin.

Q: What is the total number of benchmark wins for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins 13 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core 7 250H wins 4.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core counts and threading capabilities. The Intel Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 7 250H uses a hybrid core arrangement that yields more threads, while the Core Ultra 7 356H has more physical cores but no hyperthreading, resulting in equal core and thread counts.

Clock speeds also diverge significantly. The Intel Core 7 250H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has a lower base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core 7 250H holds the advantage in both clock speed specifications, yet the Core Ultra 7 356H still wins most benchmarks, indicating superior instructions per clock.

Thermal design power differs, with the Intel Core 7 250H rated at 45 watts and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H rated at 25 watts. The Core Ultra 7 356H delivers higher performance in most tests while using less power budget, according to the recorded TDP figures. Socket compatibility also differs: the Core 7 250H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 7 356H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Cache hierarchies are different. The Intel 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 Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 356H has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, while the Core 7 250H has more shared L3 cache.

Memory support differs, with the Intel Core 7 250H supporting DDR4 and DDR5, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The Core Ultra 7 356H lists a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 7 250H does not have a recorded bandwidth figure. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the Core 7 250H offering Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes and the Core Ultra 7 356H offering Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics are different: the Intel Core 7 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Release dates are also distinct, with the Core 7 250H released on 2024-12-17 and the Core Ultra 7 356H released on 2026-01-04. The Core 7 250H has a launch MSRP of $502, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 7 356H.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 7 250H is based on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is based on the Panther Lake architecture with the same Panther Lake codename, and belongs to the Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H) generation. These are distinct microarchitectures from different design eras.

The manufacturing process nodes differ. The Intel Core 7 250H uses a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H uses a 3 nm process node, both fabricated by Intel. The smaller process node for the Core Ultra 7 356H partially explains its higher performance despite lower clock speeds, as the denser transistor layout allows for more efficient power delivery and reduced latency.

The core design philosophy differs between the two. The Intel Core 7 250H uses a configuration that supports 20 threads from 14 cores, implying some cores support simultaneous multithreading. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H uses 16 cores with 16 threads, indicating no multithreading support on any core. This architectural choice means the Core Ultra 7 356H relies on physical core count rather than thread duplication for its multi-threaded performance.

Cache architecture reflects the generational change. The Core Ultra 7 356H has more than double the L1 cache per core (192 KB versus 80 KB) and 25% more L2 cache per core (2.5 MB versus 2 MB). The Core 7 250H compensates with a larger shared L3 cache (24 MB versus 18 MB). The larger per-core caches in the Core Ultra 7 356H likely contribute to its superior single-core and encryption test results.

The integrated graphics represent a generational leap. The Core 7 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core Ultra 7 356H uses the newer Intel Xe3 Graphics architecture. The Core Ultra 7 356H also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is not listed for the Core 7 250H, potentially providing higher memory bandwidth for integrated graphics workloads. The memory bandwidth figure of 115.2 GB/s for the Core Ultra 7 356H supports this interpretation.

The Core Ultra 7 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, a product family designation not present for the Core 7 250H. The newer Panther Lake architecture also supports 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, compared to 8 lanes for the Raptor Lake-based Core 7 250H. This provides additional bandwidth for discrete GPUs or high-speed storage devices. The architecture differences explain the benchmark results: the Core Ultra 7 356H's newer node, larger per-core caches, and optimized instruction handling give it broad performance advantages, while the Core 7 250H's higher clock speeds and larger L3 cache help it win the integer math test and the PassMark single-thread test.