Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear split between the two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins 14 of the 17 recorded benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core 7 251TE takes 3 wins. The margins, however, vary dramatically by workload type.

The Core Ultra 5 235H dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2580 against 2572 for the Core 7 251TE, a 0.3% edge. The single-core R15 result is similar: 364 versus 362, a 0.5% lead. R20 multicore shows 10751 versus 10717, and R20 single-core shows 1517 versus 1512, both 0.3% gaps. R23 multicore delivers 25598 against 25518, and R23 single-core gives 3613 versus 3602, again 0.3% differences. These are narrow margins, but they are consistent across every Cinebench iteration.

The PassMark results tell a more polarized story. The Core 7 251TE posts its largest victory in integer math, scoring 125739 against 74247 for the Core Ultra 5 235H. That is a 69.4% advantage, the biggest delta in the entire comparison. Data compression also favors the Core 7 251TE: 334399 versus 301979, a 10.7% lead. Random string sorting goes to the Core 7 251TE as well, 39643 versus 36208, a 9.5% margin.

The Core Ultra 5 235H answers with equally decisive wins in other PassMark tests. Extended instructions show 23354 versus 16974, a 27.3% advantage. Find prime numbers favors the Core Ultra 5 235H by 41.4%, with 239 versus 140. Single-thread performance is another strong area: 4359 versus 3568, an 18.1% gap. Floating point math goes to the Core Ultra 5 235H at 93509 versus 85607, an 8.5% lead. Data encryption shows 23121 versus 22176, a 4.1% edge. Physics testing gives 1985 versus 1938, a 2.4% difference. The multithread PassMark test is nearly even: 30091 versus 30022, a 0.2% margin for the Core Ultra 5 235H.

The average benchmark score for the Core 7 251TE is 41650, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H, averages 41621, just 0.1% behind. The Core Ultra 5 235H averages 37522, in the 85th percentile. Its closest rival, the Intel Core i9-13900HK, scores 37425, 0.3% behind.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Core 7 251TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process node at Intel as the foundry. It belongs to the Core 7 generation. The Core Ultra 5 235H, by contrast, uses the Arrow Lake-H codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 7 251TE packs 24 cores and 32 threads. The Core Ultra 5 235H has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Core 7 251TE therefore offers more than twice the thread count, which explains its integer math advantage. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 7 251TE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235H has larger per-core caches, while the Core 7 251TE has double the total L3 capacity.

The socket situation reflects their different market positions. The Core 7 251TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 235H uses Intel BGA 2049. The die size for the Core 7 251TE is 215 mm²; no die size is recorded for the Core Ultra 5 235H. Neither processor has a recorded transistor count.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 7 251TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 235H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core Ultra 5 235H has a higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s, versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 7 251TE. ECC memory is supported by the Core 7 251TE but not by the Core Ultra 5 235H.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 7 251TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 235H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics are distinct: UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 7 251TE, Arc Graphics 140T on the Core Ultra 5 235H.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 251TE establishes its territory in throughput-heavy integer workloads. Its 69.4% lead in PassMark integer math is the single largest margin in the comparison. Data compression follows, with a 10.7% advantage, and random string sorting adds a 9.5% win. These three victories point to workloads that scale with core count and raw parallel execution. The 24-core, 32-thread configuration appears to be the driving factor, as these tests are typically sensitive to thread availability rather than per-core efficiency.

The Core Ultra 5 235H wins everywhere else. Its Cinebench results, while narrow, are uniform across multicore and single-core tests. The single-thread PassMark score shows an 18.1% lead, indicating superior per-core performance. Extended instructions produce a 27.3% margin, find prime numbers a 41.4% margin, and floating point math an 8.5% margin. Data encryption, physics, and the overall multithread metric all favor the Core Ultra 5 235H, though by smaller amounts.

The pattern is consistent: the Core Ultra 5 235H wins on efficiency, per-core speed, and instruction-heavy tasks, while the Core 7 251TE wins on brute-force integer throughput and compression. The 14-core, 14-thread Core Ultra 5 235H does not rely on hyperthreading, yet it still edges out the 32-thread Core 7 251TE in the multithread PassMark test by 0.2%. That result is notable because it shows the architectural efficiency of the 3 nm Arrow Lake design compensating for a much lower thread count.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious differences: 24 cores and 32 threads for the Core 7 251TE, 14 cores and 14 threads for the Core Ultra 5 235H. Base clocks differ as well: 1.40 GHz for the Core 7 251TE, 2.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235H. Boost clocks are closer, with 5.40 GHz for the Core 7 251TE and 5.00 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235H.

Thermal design power shows a 45 W rating for the Core 7 251TE and 28 W for the Core Ultra 5 235H. The market segments differ: the Core 7 251TE is a desktop part, while the Core Ultra 5 235H is mobile. Process nodes differ (10 nm versus 3 nm), as do foundries (Intel versus TSMC). The Core 7 251TE has a launch MSRP of $384; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 5 235H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both are listed as Active in production status and share the same release date of 2025-01-12. Part numbers are SRQAXQ5ZG for the Core 7 251TE and SRQAP for the Core Ultra 5 235H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: Which processor wins in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H leads in PassMark single-thread testing with 4359 versus 3568, an 18.1% advantage. It also wins every Cinebench single-core test by 0.3% to 0.5%.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE leads by 69.4% in PassMark integer math, scoring 125739 against 74247 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H does not.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H has 102.4 GB/s, compared to 89.6 GB/s for the Intel Core 7 251TE.

Q: How do their overall database percentiles compare?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 41650. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H sits in the 85th percentile with an average score of 37522.

The Verdict

The data presents two distinct profiles. The Intel Core 7 251TE is the choice for workloads dominated by integer math, data compression, and string sorting, where its 24-core, 32-thread configuration and 36 MB of L3 cache deliver decisive margins. The 69.4% integer math lead and the 10.7% compression lead are large enough to matter in production environments that rely on those operations.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H is the better all-around performer according to the benchmark record. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench test and the majority of PassMark tests. Its 18.1% single-thread lead, 27.3% extended instructions lead, and 41.4% find prime numbers lead show a more efficient core design. The 28 W TDP, 3 nm TSMC process, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth give it advantages in power-sensitive and memory-bandwidth-sensitive scenarios.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The Core 7 251TE ranks higher overall at the 88th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 41650 exceeds the Core Ultra 5 235H average of 37522. However, the Core Ultra 5 235H wins more individual tests. The multithread PassMark result, where the 14-thread Core Ultra 5 235H beats the 32-thread Core 7 251TE by 0.2%, is the clearest signal that architectural efficiency can offset raw thread count.

For integer-heavy server or desktop tasks where core count matters most, the Core 7 251TE is supported by the data. For mobile deployments, mixed workloads, single-thread responsiveness, and instruction-heavy processing, the Core Ultra 5 235H has the stronger benchmark record. The choice depends on which benchmark categories align with the intended workload. The recorded data does not show one processor as universally superior; it shows each winning where its design strengths apply.