Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 256V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel Core 7 251E and the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V. The only recorded benchmark suite belongs to the Core Ultra 7 256V, which provides a detailed profile of its performance across Cinebench, Geekbench, and Passmark tests. The Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores, so every numerical comparison in this analysis derives from the Ultra 7 256V's results and its nearest rival data.

The Core Ultra 7 256V posts a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10399 and a single-core score of 1877.5. In Cinebench R20, it reaches 6958 multicore and 982 single-core. Geekbench results show 8643 multicore and 1990 single-core. Passmark tests reveal a multithread score of 19530, a single-thread score of 4029, integer math at 43358, floating point math at 58576, and extended instructions at 15643. Data compression hits 184985, data encryption reaches 13998, and random string sorting records 22481. The find prime numbers test completes at 192, while physics scores 1595.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 256V is 21112, placing it at the 75th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals sit extremely close. The AMD Ryzen 5 7530U averages 21133, a delta of -0.1%, meaning the Ultra 7 256V trails by that fraction. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600G averages 21088, a delta of 0.1%, meaning the Ultra 7 256V leads by that fraction. The Intel Core i3-1220P averages 21066, a delta of 0.2%, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 155U averages 21174, a delta of -0.3%. These margins are minuscule, indicating the Ultra 7 256V sits in a tightly contested performance band where a few points separate it from its nearest competitors.

Because the Core 7 251E lacks benchmark entries, the head-to-head section cannot report direct score deltas. The data instead shows a one-sided picture: the Ultra 7 256V has measurable results, while the 251E remains unmeasured. Any comparison of raw scores between these two specific processors is impossible from the recorded information.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design points. The Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, belongs to the Core 7 generation, and is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. It targets the desktop market segment and uses the Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 7 256V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It targets the mobile market segment and uses the Intel BGA 2833 socket.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Core Ultra 7 256V has 8 cores and 8 threads. That is a 16-core and 24-thread difference in the desktop part's favor. The 251E also has a higher boost clock at 5.60 GHz compared to the 256V's 4.80 GHz, while the 256V has a slightly higher base clock at 2.20 GHz versus the 251E's 2.10 GHz.

Cache layouts diverge as well. The Core 7 251E carries 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 256V carries 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 12 MB of shared L3. The 251E's L3 cache is three times larger overall. The 256V's per-core L1 and L2 figures are higher, which reflects its newer, more efficient architecture.

Memory support differs. The 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The 256V lists memory support as unknown and dependent on the motherboard, though it uses a dual-channel bus. The 256V records no memory bandwidth figure and does not support ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ significantly. The Core 7 251E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 7 256V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. The 251E has far more expansion bandwidth for desktop components. Integrated graphics also differ: the 251E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the 256V uses Arc 140V.

Power and physical design separate the two even further. The 251E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the 256V has a TDP of 17 watts. The 251E's die size is 257 mm², while the 256V records no die size. The 251E launched on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $384. The 256V launched earlier on 2024-09-23 with no launch MSRP recorded. Both processors are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The 251E carries part number SRQDUQ657, and the 256V carries SRPMPSRPMZ.

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 7 256V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The 251E delivers three times the core count and four times the thread count.

Q: How does the single-core performance of the Core Ultra 7 256V compare to its rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 7 256V scores 4029 in Passmark single-thread and 1990 in Geekbench single-core. Its average benchmark score of 21112 places it within 0.3% of its nearest rivals, with the Ryzen 5 7530U at -0.1% and the Core Ultra 7 155U at -0.3%.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Core 7 251E has a TDP of 65 watts. The Core Ultra 7 256V has a TDP of 17 watts. The 256V consumes far less power, consistent with its mobile design.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core 7 251E supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 256V does not support ECC memory.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor use?

A: The Core 7 251E uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra 7 256V uses Arc 140V.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 7 251E boosts to 5.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 256V boosts to 4.80 GHz. The 251E also has a slightly lower base clock at 2.10 GHz versus the 256V's 2.20 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification.

• Cores: 24 (251E) vs 8 (256V)
• Threads: 32 (251E) vs 8 (256V)
• Base clock: 2.10 GHz (251E) vs 2.20 GHz (256V)
• Boost clock: 5.60 GHz (251E) vs 4.80 GHz (256V)
• TDP: 65 watts (251E) vs 17 watts (256V)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 (251E) vs Intel BGA 2833 (256V)
• Codename: Bartlett Lake (251E) vs Lunar Lake (256V)
• Generation: Core 7 (Bartlett Lake) (251E) vs Ultra 7 (Lunar Lake) (256V)
• Process node: 10 nm (251E) vs 3 nm (256V)
• Foundry: Intel (251E) vs TSMC (256V)
• Die size: 257 mm² (251E) vs not recorded (256V)
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (251E) vs 192 KB per core (256V)
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (251E) vs 2.5 MB per core (256V)
• L3 cache: 36 MB shared (251E) vs 12 MB shared (256V)
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 (251E) vs unknown, depends on motherboard (256V)
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (251E) vs not recorded (256V)
• ECC memory: Supported (251E) vs not supported (256V)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes (251E) vs Gen 5, 4 lanes (256V)
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 (251E) vs Arc 140V (256V)
• Market segment: Desktop (251E) vs Mobile (256V)
• Release date: 2025-01-12 (251E) vs 2024-09-23 (256V)
• Launch MSRP: $384 (251E) vs not recorded (256V)
• Part number: SRQDUQ657 (251E) vs SRPMPSRPMZ (256V)

The two share several traits: both are Intel parts, both use dual-channel memory buses, both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 251E wins on raw compute resources. It has 24 cores versus 8, 32 threads versus 8, and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. It carries 36 MB of shared L3 cache against the 256V's 12 MB. Desktop users who need many threads for parallel workloads, such as rendering, compilation, or heavy multitasking, will find the 251E's core and thread advantage decisive. The 251E also supports ECC memory, which matters for data integrity in workstation-style environments. Its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide substantially more expansion capacity for discrete GPUs, storage controllers, or other add-in cards. The 251E's 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is recorded, while the 256V has no such figure, indicating the desktop part has a defined memory throughput advantage.

The Core Ultra 7 256V wins on efficiency and portability. Its 17 watt TDP is dramatically lower than the 251E's 65 watts. It is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC versus the 251E's 10 nm process at Intel, reflecting a newer manufacturing generation. The 256V has higher per-core L1 and L2 caches at 192 KB and 2.5 MB per core respectively, which can benefit single-threaded responsiveness. Its Arc 140V integrated graphics is a more modern GPU block than the 251E's UHD Graphics 770. The 256V records benchmark results across Cinebench, Geekbench, and Passmark, giving it a verified performance profile, while the 251E has no recorded scores. The 256V also sits at the 75th percentile among all CPUs, whereas the 251E sits at the 50th percentile, though this percentile gap reflects the absence of benchmark data for the 251E rather than a direct comparison.

The 256V's nearest rival data shows it competes closely with established mid-range parts. Its average score of 21112 trails the Ryzen 5 7530U by 0.1% and the Core Ultra 7 155U by 0.3%, while leading the Ryzen 5 5600G by 0.1% and the Core i3-1220P by 0.2%. This places the 256V in a tight pack of capable mainstream processors.

The Verdict

The data presents two processors built for different purposes. The Core 7 251E is a desktop part with 24 cores, 32 threads, a 5.60 GHz boost clock, 36 MB of L3 cache, ECC memory support, and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. It targets workloads that scale with core count and thread count, and its 65 watt TDP reflects a desktop power envelope. The Core Ultra 7 256V is a mobile part with 8 cores, 8 threads, a 4.80 GHz boost clock, 12 MB of L3 cache, no ECC support, and 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Its 17 watt TDP and 3 nm process from TSMC indicate a focus on efficiency in thin-and-light systems.

The Core 7 251E should be the choice for builders assembling a desktop workstation or high-core-count system where the 24-core, 32-thread configuration and large L3 cache are directly useful. Its ECC memory support and expansive PCIe lane count reinforce that position. The Core Ultra 7 256V should be the choice for mobile users who prioritize low power consumption, a modern process node, and verified benchmark results in a portable form factor. The 256V's recorded scores, including a 10399 Cinebench R23 multicore result and a 19530 Passmark multithread result, give it a concrete performance baseline. The 251E has no such baseline in the database, so its real-world standing remains unquantified.

The percentile rankings tell the same story. The 256V holds the 75th percentile among all CPUs, while the 251E holds the 50th percentile. Without benchmark data for the 251E, those percentiles cannot be treated as a direct performance comparison, but they do indicate that the 256V has demonstrated competitive results in the database's measurements. The 251E's specifications suggest high multi-threaded potential, but the absence of scores leaves that potential unverified. Buyers who need measured performance should look to the 256V. Buyers who need maximum core counts, threads, cache, and expansion in a desktop socket should look to the 251E.