Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear split between heavily multithreaded workloads and efficiency-oriented tasks. The Intel Core 7 251TE wins 9 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H takes 8. The magnitude of each victory, however, differs dramatically.

The most striking result is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the 251TE scores 25518 against 9240 for the 255H, a 176.2% advantage. This is by far the largest delta in the entire comparison. The R15 multicore test shows a similar pattern, with the 251TE at 2572 versus 1515, a 69.8% lead. In R20 multicore, the 251TE scores 10717 compared to 6381, a 68% margin. These results confirm that the 251TE excels when all cores are engaged simultaneously.

Single-core Cinebench results also favor the 251TE, though with varying margins. The R15 single-core test shows 362 versus 251, a 44.2% lead. The R20 single-core test shows 1512 versus 900, exactly 68% ahead. R23 single-core shows 3602 versus 1843, a 95.4% advantage. These numbers indicate that the 251TE's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz translates directly into superior single-threaded rendering performance.

The PassMark suite reveals a more nuanced picture. In integer math, the 251TE scores 125739 against 77975 for the 255H, a 61.3% lead. Data compression also favors the 251TE, with 334399 versus 298850, an 11.9% margin. Random string sorting goes to the 251TE as well, 39643 versus 36058, a 9.9% difference.

The 255H fights back in several specialized workloads. Extended instructions show the 255H at 23755 versus 16974, a 28.5% advantage. Find prime numbers favors the 255H by a wide margin: 303 versus 140, a 53.8% lead. Floating point math goes to the 255H at 98796 versus 85607, a 13.3% edge. Data encryption shows the 255H ahead at 23395 versus 22176, a 5.2% margin.

The PassMark multithread test is nearly a tie. The 255H scores 30703, only 2.2% ahead of the 251TE's 30022. Physics testing favors the 255H, with 2254 versus 1938, a 14% difference. PassMark single-thread shows the 255H clearly ahead at 4317 versus 3568, a 17.4% lead.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design lineages. The 251TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 7 generation. It is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The die size is 215 mm². The 255H uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process node by TSMC. No die size is recorded for the 255H.

Core configuration differs substantially. The 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads. The 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multithreading. This explains the massive multicore Cinebench deltas. The 251TE's 24 cores with hyperthreading produce 32 execution threads, while the 255H's 16 cores each handle a single thread.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The 251TE uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3. The 255H uses 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the 255H contribute to its strong single-thread PassMark scores, while the 251TE's larger shared L3 benefits multithreaded workloads.

Memory support differs as well. The 251TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 255H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The 255H has higher recorded memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the 251TE. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities favor the 255H, with Gen 5 and 20 CPU lanes versus Gen 5 and 16 lanes for the 251TE. Integrated graphics also differ: the 251TE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the 255H uses Arc Graphics 140T.

The market segments are distinct. The 251TE is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700. The 255H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2049. The 251TE carries a launch MSRP of $384, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the 255H. Both are active production parts with unlocked multipliers disabled, and both were released on the same date.

Where Each One Wins

The 251TE dominates in rendering workloads and integer-heavy computation. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 25518 places it far above the 255H, and the 176.2% delta shows this is not a marginal difference. The 251TE also wins in Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore by roughly 69% and 68% respectively. For users running CPU rendering, video encoding, or other workloads that scale with thread count, the 251TE's 32 threads provide a decisive advantage.

Data compression and random string sorting also go to the 251TE. The 11.9% lead in compression and 9.9% lead in sorting suggest better throughput in archival and database-style operations. Integer math at 125739 versus 77975, a 61.3% lead, further confirms the 251TE's strength in general-purpose arithmetic.

The 255H wins in efficiency-oriented and vectorized tasks. Extended instructions at 23755 versus 16974, a 28.5% lead, indicates better SIMD and specialized instruction throughput. Find prime numbers at 303 versus 140, a 53.8% advantage, shows superior performance in algorithms with heavy branch prediction and small integer operations. Floating point math at 98796 versus 85607, a 13.3% margin, favors the 255H.

The 255H also wins in single-thread PassMark testing with a 17.4% lead, and in physics simulation with a 14% margin. Data encryption is a narrow victory for the 255H at 5.2%. The multithread PassMark result is essentially a wash, with the 255H ahead by only 2.2%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification category. The 251TE has 24 cores versus 16 for the 255H, and 32 threads versus 16. Base clocks are 1.40 GHz for the 251TE and 2.00 GHz for the 255H. Boost clocks are 5.40 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. The 251TE has a 45 W TDP, while the 255H has a 28 W TDP.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the 251TE versus Intel BGA 2049 for the 255H. Process nodes differ at 10 nm versus 3 nm, with different foundries. The 251TE has a recorded die size of 215 mm², while no die size is recorded for the 255H.

L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the 251TE versus 192 KB per core for the 255H. L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 cache is 36 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the 251TE, DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the 255H. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 16 versus 20.

Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 for the 251TE and Arc Graphics 140T for the 255H. Market segments are Desktop versus Mobile. Part numbers are SRQAXQ5ZG and SRQAN respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

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

A: Cinebench R23 multicore shows the 251TE ahead by 176.2%, scoring 25518 versus 9240.

Q: Does the 255H win any benchmarks by a large margin?

A: Yes. The 255H wins find prime numbers by 53.8% (303 versus 140) and extended instructions by 28.5% (23755 versus 16974).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The 255H has 102.4 GB/s, while the 251TE has 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors on the same socket?

A: No. The 251TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 255H uses Intel BGA 2049.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The 251TE has a 5.40 GHz boost clock, while the 255H has a 5.10 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The 251TE has a 45 W TDP, while the 255H has a 28 W TDP.

The Verdict

The data points to two different design goals. The 251TE is built for maximum multithreaded throughput with 24 cores, 32 threads, and a 5.40 GHz boost clock. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 25518, 176.2% above the 255H, makes it the clear choice for heavily threaded desktop workloads. The 45 W TDP and Socket 1700 compatibility indicate a desktop-oriented part.

The 255H is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP and BGA 2049 socket. Its 16 cores and 16 threads cannot match the 251TE in rendering, but the 255H wins in single-thread PassMark testing by 17.4% and in specialized workloads such as extended instructions, prime number finding, and floating point math. The higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and the larger per-core caches suit efficiency-focused tasks.

For users choosing between them, the decision rests on workload type and platform. The 251TE delivers 9 benchmark wins, including all four Cinebench tests, and holds a 9.9% to 176.2% advantage across its winning categories. The 255H delivers 8 wins concentrated in PassMark subtests and physics, with margins ranging from 2.2% to 53.8%. The overall percentile rankings place the 251TE at 88 versus 83 for the 255H, confirming its higher standing among all recorded CPUs.

The average benchmark scores further illustrate the gap. The 251TE averages 41650 across its recorded tests, while the 255H averages 33537. The nearest rivals for the 251TE include the Core Ultra 7 265H at 41621 (0.1% behind) and the Core i7-14650HX at 41576 (0.2% behind). The 255H's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 240 at 33542 (0% delta) and the Ryzen 7 8840HS at 33667 (0.4% ahead).

The 251TE is the stronger processor for multithreaded rendering, integer math, and data compression. The 255H is the stronger processor for single-thread PassMark performance, vectorized instructions, and power-constrained mobile use. The recorded data does not show one as universally superior, only differently specialized.