Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

Intel Core 7 251E and Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX are two 24-core processors released on the same date, yet they target different market segments and use fundamentally different silicon. The Core 7 251E is a desktop part built on Intel's 10 nm process with a 65 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX is a mobile processor on TSMC's 3 nm node with a 55 W TDP. The database contains benchmark scores for the Core Ultra 9 275HX, placing it at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile. This analysis relies strictly on the recorded data, comparing the two based on their architecture, specifications, and the measured performance of the Ultra 9 against its nearest rivals.

FAQ

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: Both processors have 24 cores. The Intel Core 7 251E has 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 threads. The Core 7 251E supports simultaneous multithreading, whereas the Core Ultra 9 275HX does not.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E boosts up to 5.60 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra 9 275HX's maximum boost of 5.40 GHz. The base clock of the Ultra 9 is 2.70 GHz, compared to 2.10 GHz for the Core 7.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX does not. Both processors support DDR5, but the Core 7 251E also supports DDR4, whereas the Ultra 9 275HX supports DDR5 only.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, compared to 89.6 GB/s for the Intel Core 7 251E. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX ranks at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core 7 251E ranks at the 50th percentile. The Ultra 9 also has an average benchmark score of 67469, whereas the Core 7 251E has an average benchmark score of 0 in the database.

Q: What are the integrated graphics options?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both processors have integrated graphics, but with different GPU architectures.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their underlying architecture. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process. This process difference is substantial: the Ultra 9 uses a leading-edge 3 nm node, while the Core 7 251E uses a more mature 10 nm node. The foundry also differs, with Intel producing the Core 7 251E and TSMC producing the Core Ultra 9 275HX.

The transistor count and die size reflect this architectural gap. The Core Ultra 9 275HX contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 7 251E has no listed transistor count but uses a 257 mm² die. Despite the larger physical die, the Core 7 251E is manufactured on a less dense process, which explains the lack of a published transistor figure in the data.

Cache hierarchies also differ between the two. The Core 7 251E has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core and an L2 cache of 2 MB per core. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has a larger L1 cache of 192 KB per core and an L2 cache of 3 MB per core. Both share a 36 MB L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Ultra 9 suggest a different core design, likely optimized for higher instructions per clock, despite the lower boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 5.60 GHz on the Core 7 251E.

The socket and packaging differ completely. The Core 7 251E uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop platform, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Intel BGA 2114, a mobile platform. This aligns with their market segments: Desktop for the Core 7 251E and Mobile for the Core Ultra 9 275HX. The Core 7 251E has a locked multiplier, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking on the mobile part.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 7 251E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 275HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Ultra 9 more PCIe bandwidth for expansion. The Core 7 251E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 only. The Ultra 9 also has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 7 251E.

The Verdict

The recorded data paints a clear picture of two processors with different design goals. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, with its 94th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 67469, is positioned as a high-performance mobile processor. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3525 with an average score of 67673, which is 0.3% higher, and the AMD EPYC 4484PX with an average score of 67822, which is 0.5% higher. The Ultra 9 also trails the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX by 0.6%, which scores 67868, but it leads the Intel Xeon 6515P by 0.7%, which scores 67006. These are extremely close margins, placing the Ultra 9 in a highly competitive performance tier.

The Intel Core 7 251E, in contrast, has no benchmark scores in the database and a 50th percentile ranking. This indicates that its performance is unmeasured in the available data, making direct comparison impossible. However, the architectural differences suggest a different role. The Core 7 251E supports ECC memory, which the Ultra 9 does not, and it uses a desktop socket with a locked multiplier. This makes it a candidate for workstation or server-like reliability use cases, where ECC memory is critical and overclocking is not a priority.

For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded performance in a mobile form factor, the Core Ultra 9 275HX is the clear choice based on its benchmark scores and 94th percentile ranking. For users needing ECC memory support and a desktop platform with a higher boost clock, the Core 7 251E offers those specific features, though its performance is not recorded in the database. The choice hinges on platform requirements versus measured performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The Core 7 251E has 32 threads versus 24 threads on the Core Ultra 9 275HX, a difference of 8 threads due to the Core 7's multithreading capability. The base clock is 2.10 GHz on the Core 7 251E and 2.70 GHz on the Ultra 9, a 0.60 GHz advantage for the mobile part. The boost clock is 5.60 GHz on the Core 7 251E and 5.40 GHz on the Ultra 9, a 0.20 GHz advantage for the desktop part.

The TDP differs by 10 W: 65 W for the Core 7 251E and 55 W for the Ultra 9. The socket is Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 7 251E and Intel BGA 2114 for the Ultra 9. The process node is 10 nm for the Core 7 251E and 3 nm for the Ultra 9. The foundry is Intel for the Core 7 251E and TSMC for the Ultra 9. The transistor count is not listed for the Core 7 251E but is 17,800 million for the Ultra 9. The die size is 257 mm² for the Core 7 251E and 243 mm² for the Ultra 9.

Cache sizes differ: L1 is 80 KB per core for the Core 7 251E and 192 KB per core for the Ultra 9. L2 is 2 MB per core for the Core 7 251E and 3 MB per core for the Ultra 9. L3 is 36 MB shared for both. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 7 251E and DDR5 only for the Ultra 9. The memory bus is dual-channel for both, but memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the Core 7 251E and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 9.

ECC memory support is true for the Core 7 251E and false for the Ultra 9. PCIe is Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Core 7 251E and Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Ultra 9. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 for the Core 7 251E and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the Ultra 9. The multiplier is locked on the Core 7 251E and unlocked on the Ultra 9. The market segment is Desktop for the Core 7 251E and Mobile for the Ultra 9. The part numbers are SRQDUQ657 for the Core 7 251E and SRVFK for the Ultra 9. The launch MSRP is $384 for the Core 7 251E, while the Ultra 9 has no listed launch MSRP.

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 9 275HX. The winsA and winsB fields are both 0, indicating that no benchmark tests were recorded for this specific pairing. The Core 7 251E has an empty benchmarks array, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX has a full set of 19 benchmark scores.

For the Core Ultra 9 275HX, the recorded scores show a strong multi-threaded performer. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 5619.5, and in singlecore it scores 334. The Cinebench R20 results show 19899 multicore and 2809 singlecore. Cinebench R23 results are 35589 multicore and 2204 singlecore. Geekbench scores are 20795 multicore and 2458 singlecore.

Passmark results cover a range of workloads. The data compression score is 608381, data encryption is 47112, extended instructions is 47016, and find prime numbers is 448. Floating point math scores 191186, integer math scores 155218, and multithread scores 55759. Physics scores 3338, random string sorting scores 74320, and single thread scores 4713.

Without any benchmark data for the Core 7 251E, a direct head-to-head comparison is impossible. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9, however, provide context for its performance. The Ultra 9's average benchmark score of 67469 is within 0.7% of the Intel Xeon 6515P's score of 67006, and within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX's score of 67868. These margins are small enough to indicate parity with these high-end workstation processors.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available data, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins in every measured benchmark category, simply because it has recorded scores while the Core 7 251E has none. The Ultra 9 demonstrates strength in multi-threaded workloads, as shown by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35589 and Passmark multithread score of 55759. Its 94th percentile ranking confirms that it outperforms the vast majority of CPUs in the database.

The Intel Core 7 251E wins in specific feature categories that are not performance-based. It supports ECC memory, which the Ultra 9 does not. It also offers a higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz versus 5.40 GHz on the Ultra 9, which could benefit lightly threaded workloads if the desktop platform can sustain that frequency. The Core 7 251E also supports DDR4 memory, providing more flexibility for system builders with existing DDR4 modules, whereas the Ultra 9 requires DDR5.

The Core 7 251E uses a desktop socket, Intel Socket 1700, which is a standard platform for desktop builds. The Ultra 9 uses a mobile BGA socket, limiting it to laptop or all-in-one designs. The Core 7 251E also has a locked multiplier, which is typical for non-overclocking desktop parts, while the Ultra 9's unlocked multiplier offers overclocking potential on mobile platforms.

The Ultra 9 wins on process technology, using a 3 nm node from TSMC compared to Intel's 10 nm node for the Core 7 251E. This contributes to its higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and larger per-core caches. The Ultra 9 also has more PCIe lanes, 20 versus 16, which is advantageous for storage and GPU connectivity in mobile workstations.

The Core 7 251E wins on ECC support, making it suitable for reliability-focused applications where memory errors are unacceptable. The Ultra 9 wins on measured performance, with an average benchmark score of 67469 and a 94th percentile ranking. The choice between the two ultimately depends on whether the user needs ECC memory and a desktop platform, or high measured multi-threaded performance in a mobile form factor.