Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits this comparison into two clear territories. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus dominates the multicore and throughput-oriented workloads, winning 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 7 251TE takes only 2 wins, but both are in single-core Cinebench tests, which shows a specific strength in lightly threaded legacy rendering workloads.

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus leads in every PassMark workload category. Data compression shows a 58.4% advantage, data encryption a 62.5% advantage, and extended instructions a 73.3% advantage. The floating point math score of 229491 versus 85607 indicates the 270K Plus delivers more than double the FP throughput. Integer math is closer, with a 28.6% lead, but still firmly in favor of the 270K Plus.

The 251TE's two wins come in Cinebench R15 single-core (362 versus 354, a 2.3% edge) and Cinebench R23 single-core (3602 versus 2439, a 47.7% edge). The R23 single-core result is particularly striking because the 251TE's score is substantially higher despite the 270K Plus having a higher boost clock. The R20 single-core test goes the other way: the 270K Plus scores 3453 versus 1512, a 56.2% lead for the 270K Plus. These contradictory single-core results across Cinebench versions suggest the two chips have very different behavior depending on the workload's instruction mix and duration.

The overall average benchmark score reflects this imbalance. The 270K Plus averages 93785, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The 251TE averages 41650, sitting in the 88th percentile. The 270K Plus's nearest rivals are server-class parts: the Intel Xeon 6520P (0% delta), AMD EPYC 4564P (-1.5%), AMD EPYC 9175F (-1.9%), and AMD EPYC 4565P (-2.1%). The 251TE's nearest rivals are mobile and desktop hybrids: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H (0.1%), Core i7-14650HX (0.2%), Core i7-12850HX (-0.3%), and Core i7-14700T (-0.6%).

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same core count, 24 cores, but diverge sharply in thread count. The 251TE supports 32 threads, while the 270K Plus supports 24 threads. The 251TE therefore relies on Hyper-Threading-style simultaneous multithreading to reach its thread count, whereas the 270K Plus runs one thread per core.

The process technology separates them clearly. The 251TE uses Intel's 10 nm node with a 215 mm² die. The 270K Plus uses TSMC's 3 nm node with a 243 mm² die and 17,800 million transistors. The smaller process node explains part of the 270K Plus's efficiency and performance advantage, though the database does not record power efficiency figures for either part.

Cache hierarchies differ in the lower levels. The 251TE has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. The 270K Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. Both share 36 MB of L3, so the total cache pool at the last level is identical. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the 270K Plus likely contributes to its strong PassMark performance in data-heavy workloads.

Memory support also differs. The 251TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 270K Plus supports DDR5 only. Both run dual-channel memory buses. The 270K Plus's memory bandwidth is recorded at 115.2 GB/s, versus 89.6 GB/s for the 251TE, a 28.6% higher theoretical ceiling. Both support ECC memory.

The integrated graphics differ. The 251TE carries UHD Graphics 770, while the 270K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The database does not include iGPU benchmark scores, so no direct graphics performance comparison is possible from this data.

The sockets and platforms are incompatible. The 251TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 270K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. PCIe lane counts also differ: the 251TE provides 16 CPU-attached Gen 5 lanes, the 270K Plus provides 20. The 270K Plus has an unlocked multiplier; the 251TE does not. Both are currently in active production. The 251TE launched on 2025-01-12, the 270K Plus on 2026-03-10.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single delta in the entire comparison is Cinebench R15 multicore. The 270K Plus scores 6656 against the 251TE's 2572, a 61.4% difference. R20 multicore shows a 56.2% gap (24461 versus 10717), and R23 multicore a 42.3% gap (44253 versus 25518). These results indicate the 270K Plus scales much better across all cores, consistent with its higher base clock of 3.70 GHz versus 1.40 GHz.

PassMark multithread confirms the pattern: 68574 for the 270K Plus versus 30022 for the 251TE, a 56.2% lead. The physics workload, which often tracks multicore throughput, shows 4064 versus 1938, a 52.3% gap. Extended instructions show the widest margin at 73.3% (63506 versus 16974), suggesting the 270K Plus executes SIMD and specialized instruction sets at a much higher rate. Prime number finding shows a 77.2% gap (615 versus 140), the largest percentage difference in the entire dataset.

The narrowest multicore-adjacent win for the 270K Plus is integer math at 28.6% (175986 versus 125739). Single-thread PassMark also goes to the 270K Plus at 29.6% (5068 versus 3568). Random string sorting shows a 59.1% gap (96945 versus 39643).

The 251TE's wins are confined to Cinebench R15 single-core (362 versus 354, 2.3%) and Cinebench R23 single-core (3602 versus 2439, 47.7%). The R23 single-core result is the second-largest percentage delta in the entire comparison, but in the opposite direction from every other test. This anomaly suggests the 251TE's architecture, possibly due to its different core configuration or SMT implementation, handles that specific benchmark's single-threaded workload more efficiently. The R20 single-core test contradicts this, with the 270K Plus winning by 56.2%, so the R23 advantage should not be read as a general single-core superiority.

The average benchmark score gap is 52135 points, or 55.6% higher for the 270K Plus. The 270K Plus's 96th percentile ranking versus the 251TE's 88th percentile places them in different performance classes despite the identical core count.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a straightforward allocation: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is the stronger processor for almost every measurable workload. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, holds a 55.6% higher average benchmark score, and ranks 8 percentile points higher against all CPUs. Its leads are largest in extended instructions (73.3%), prime number finding (77.2%), data encryption (62.5%), and floating point math (62.7%), which points to a decisive advantage in compute-heavy, parallel, and crypto-related tasks.

The Intel Core 7 251TE is the choice only for a narrow set of legacy single-threaded Cinebench workloads. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 47.7% higher than the 270K Plus, and its R15 single-core score is 2.3% higher. For users whose primary benchmark is Cinebench R23 single-core, the 251TE delivers a measurable edge. It also offers DDR4 memory support, which the 270K Plus lacks, and a much lower TDP of 45 watts versus 125 watts, though the database does not record measured power consumption. The 251TE's 32 threads versus 24 threads on the 270K Plus does not translate into any multicore benchmark win, so the extra threads are not an advantage in the recorded tests.

The 270K Plus's nearest rivals are EPYC and Xeon server processors, which confirms its position as a high-throughput desktop part. The 251TE's nearest rivals are mobile HX-series and desktop T-series chips, which places it in a more mainstream performance tier. The 270K Plus also provides more PCIe lanes (20 versus 16) and a newer integrated GPU (Arc Xe-LPG 64EU versus UHD Graphics 770), both on the 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors. The 251TE's launch MSRP is $384. The 270K Plus's launch MSRP is $299. The 251TE is also the older part, launching on 2025-01-12 versus 2026-03-10 for the 270K Plus.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus averages 93785, while the Intel Core 7 251TE averages 41650.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251TE win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins Cinebench R15 single-core (362 versus 354, a 2.3% edge) and Cinebench R23 single-core (3602 versus 2439, a 47.7% edge).

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the comparison?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest gap at 77.2%, with the 270K Plus scoring 615 versus 140 for the 251TE.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 7 251TE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 threads. Both have 24 cores.

Q: Are the two processors socket-compatible?

A: No. The 251TE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the 270K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 251TE | Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus |

|---|---|---|

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base clock | 1.40 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Process node | 10 nm (Intel) | 3 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 215 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $384 | $299 |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-03-10 |

| Part number | SRQAXQ5ZG | SA4V6 |

The two chips share the same core count (24), L3 cache size (36 MB shared), dual-channel memory bus, ECC support, desktop market segment, and active production status. The specification table shows that the 270K Plus pairs a more advanced process node with higher clocks, more cache per core, more PCIe lanes, and a higher memory bandwidth ceiling. The 251TE counters with SMT support, DDR4 compatibility, a lower TDP, and a longer track record in the database.