Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison
Intel Core 7 251E
Core Ultra 5 235A
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The database shows a clear performance split between these two processors, but the comparison is lopsided because the Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores. All measured results in the database belong to the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A, which holds an average benchmark score of 48,201. The Core 7 251E sits at a 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs with an average score of zero, while the Core Ultra 5 235A reaches the 90th percentile. That percentile gap is the single largest statistical difference between the two parts.
The Core Ultra 5 235A delivers strong multi-threaded results. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,633 places it well above the median processor, and its single-core R23 result of 4,607 confirms that per-thread performance is also solid. In PassMark tests, the Ultra 5 235A records 38,392 in multi-thread scoring and 4,557 in single-thread scoring. The data compression benchmark shows 393,800, while data encryption reaches 30,136. Integer math scores 88,626, floating point math hits 118,778, and extended instructions land at 31,625. The physics test returns 2,437, prime number finding scores 392, and random string sorting finishes at 49,489.
Because the Core 7 251E has no benchmark entries, direct head-to-head deltas cannot be computed. The database lists zero wins for either processor. What the data does show is that the Core Ultra 5 235A is a measured performer with a full suite of results, while the Core 7 251E remains an unmeasured entry. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 235A provide context: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 scores 48,171, which is 0.1% behind, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX scores 48,287, which is 0.2% ahead. The AMD EPYC 4345P sits 0.6% ahead at 48,470, and the AMD Ryzen 9 3900 trails by 0.6% at 47,918.
Those narrow deltas indicate that the Core Ultra 5 235A is tightly grouped with several competitive desktop and mobile processors. The 0.1% and 0.6% margins are small enough to be considered noise in many workloads, but the ranking itself confirms that the Ultra 5 235A belongs in the upper tier of measured CPUs. The Core 7 251E, by contrast, has no comparable data points, so any claims about its performance relative to the Ultra 5 235A would lack database support.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 7 generation. It is built on Intel's 10 nm process node with a die size of 257 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. Its process node is 3 nm, produced by TSMC, and its die size is 243 mm². The transistor count for the Ultra 5 235A is listed at 17,800 million, while the Core 7 251E has no recorded transistor figure.
The core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, a configuration that suggests heavy multi-threading capability. The Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multi-threading entirely. The base clock on the Ultra 5 235A is 3.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz on the Core 7 251E, but the boost clock favors the Core 7 251E at 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. Both parts have a 65 W TDP.
Cache layouts are also distinct. The Core 7 251E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235A has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 235A therefore provides more per-core cache, while the Core 7 251E offers a larger total L3 pool.
Memory support separates the two as well. The Core 7 251E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 only, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC is not supported on the Ultra 5 235A.
PCIe lanes differ. The Core 7 251E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 235A provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 7 251E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 5 235A uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU.
Sockets are incompatible. The Core 7 251E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 251E launched on 2025-01-12, and the Ultra 5 235A launched on 2025-07-28.
Where Each One Wins
The data supports only one measured winner: the Core Ultra 5 235A. Every benchmark score in the database belongs to this processor, and its 90th percentile ranking confirms that it performs well across the tested workloads. The single-core Cinebench R15 score of 464 and R20 score of 1,934 indicate responsive per-thread performance, which benefits lightly threaded applications such as older games, scripting, and daily desktop tasks. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,557 reinforces that pattern.
Multi-threaded workloads also favor the Ultra 5 235A based on recorded data. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,633 and PassMark multi-thread score of 38,392 show that this 14-core part handles parallel workloads effectively despite having no SMT. The data compression score of 393,800 and integer math score of 88,626 suggest strong throughput in productivity and content creation tasks. Floating point math at 118,778 further supports scientific and rendering workloads.
The Core 7 251E cannot claim any benchmark wins because no scores are recorded. Its specifications suggest that the 24-core, 32-thread configuration with a 5.60 GHz boost clock could be competitive in heavily threaded workloads, but the database does not contain measurements to confirm that. The 36 MB L3 cache and DDR4 support also indicate a different design philosophy, one aimed at compatibility and high core counts rather than the newer memory and process technology found in the Ultra 5 235A.
For users who rely on ECC memory, the Core 7 251E is the only option of the two, since the Ultra 5 235A lacks ECC support. For users who need DDR4 compatibility, the Core 7 251E is again the only choice. For users who prioritize measured performance, the Ultra 5 235A is the sole candidate with data.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in several key specifications. Core count: 24 on the Core 7 251E versus 14 on the Ultra 5 235A. Thread count: 32 versus 14. Base clock: 2.10 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. Boost clock: 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Die size: 257 mm² versus 243 mm². Transistors: not listed for the Core 7 251E, 17,800 million for the Ultra 5 235A.
Cache: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 is 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 is 36 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC: supported on the Core 7 251E, not on the Ultra 5 235A. PCIe: Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU.
Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851. Release date: 2025-01-12 versus 2025-07-28. Launch MSRP: the Core 7 251E carries a launch MSRP of $384, and the Ultra 5 235A carries a launch MSRP of $269. Both are locked multipliers. Both are desktop parts with active production status. The Ultra 5 235A is listed with the series name Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 7 251E has no series field.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads.
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The Intel Core 7 251E boosts to 5.60 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A boosts to 5.00 GHz.
Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A support ECC memory?
A: No. ECC memory support is listed only for the Intel Core 7 251E.
Q: Which processor uses the newer process node?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core 7 251E uses a 10 nm process from Intel.
Q: Are these processors socket compatible?
A: No. The Intel Core 7 251E uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851.
Q: Which processor has recorded benchmark scores in the database?
A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has recorded benchmark scores. The Intel Core 7 251E has no benchmark entries.
The Verdict
The database contains measured performance data for only one of these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A delivers a complete benchmark profile with an average score of 48,201, a 90th percentile ranking, and results across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark tests. Its nearest rivals sit within 0.6% in either direction, which places it in a tightly contested performance tier. The Core 7 251E has no recorded scores, so its performance cannot be verified from the data.
For applications that depend on measured multi-threaded throughput, the Ultra 5 235A is the only part with evidence to support it. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,633 and PassMark multi-thread score of 38,392 indicate a capable desktop processor. The single-core scores of 4,607 in R23 and 4,557 in PassMark also suggest solid responsiveness in per-thread tasks.
The Core 7 251E offers a higher core count, higher thread count, higher boost clock, larger L3 cache, DDR4 support, ECC support, and an earlier release date. Those specifications may appeal to users with specific compatibility requirements, particularly those who need ECC memory or DDR4. The Ultra 5 235A counters with a smaller process node, higher base clock, higher memory bandwidth, more PCIe lanes, and a lower launch MSRP.
Based strictly on recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is the verified performer. The Core 7 251E remains an unmeasured entry whose real-world performance cannot be assessed from the database. Users who require ECC or DDR4 may still consider the Core 7 251E on specification grounds, but no benchmark evidence supports a performance claim for it. The data favors the Ultra 5 235A wherever measured performance matters.