Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors into clearly distinct roles. The Intel Core 7 251TE dominates in almost every multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workload, winning 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. Its victories are not marginal; several deltas exceed 50%, and the Cinebench R23 multi-core result shows a 150.7% advantage. This is a processor built for sustained parallel work, and the numbers reflect that consistently.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins only three tests: PassMark find prime numbers, PassMark single thread, and PassMark singlethread (the latter two are duplicate entries of the same test). These wins are notable for what they reveal. The single-thread score of 4274 versus 3568 is a 16.5% lead, which indicates a very strong per-core design. The prime number test, scoring 195 versus 140, suggests efficiency in a specific integer workload that favors the newer architecture's core design.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Core 7 251TE is the clear choice for rendering, compression, encryption, floating-point math, and any workload that scales with core count and thread count. The Core Ultra 9 288V is the better option for lightly threaded tasks, particularly those that rely on a single core's maximum performance. The data does not show any scenario where the Ultra 9 wins in a multi-threaded application.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different Intel design philosophies. The Core 7 251TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process node, and features 24 cores with 32 threads. It is a desktop-class part on the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, and is a mobile part on the Intel BGA 2833 socket.

The core counts alone tell the story: 24 cores versus 8 cores. The Core 7 251TE also supports hyper-threading, giving 32 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 threads with no hyper-threading. Cache configurations differ significantly. 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 9 288V has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 12 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra 9 likely contribute to its single-thread advantage.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 7 251TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core Ultra 9 288V uses only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, and no ECC support. The Ultra 9's integrated graphics are Arc 140V, while the Core 7 251TE uses UHD Graphics 770. PCIe lanes also differ: 16 Gen 5 lanes for the desktop part versus 4 Gen 5 lanes for the mobile part.

The production status for both is active, but the release dates differ: January 2025 for the Core 7 251TE and September 2024 for the Core Ultra 9 288V. The process node difference (10 nm versus 3 nm) is the most fundamental architectural gap, explaining how the Ultra 9 achieves its single-core efficiency despite having far fewer cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Core 7 251TE comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 25518 against the Ultra 9's 10178, a 150.7% delta. This is a massive gap that reflects the 24-core versus 8-core difference. The R20 multi-core test shows a 51.6% lead (10717 versus 7069), and R15 multi-core shows a 62.5% lead (2572 versus 1583). The pattern is consistent: the more cores, the larger the margin.

PassMark integer math shows an 185.6% advantage for the Core 7 251TE (125739 versus 44019). This is the second-largest delta in the dataset. Floating-point math also favors the desktop part by 43.8% (85607 versus 59536). Data compression shows a 79.3% lead (334399 versus 186521), and random string sorting shows a 75.2% lead (39643 versus 22622). Data encryption is 56.8% faster (22176 versus 14141).

The Core 7 251TE also wins single-core Cinebench tests, which is counterintuitive given the Ultra 9's PassMark single-thread win. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 7 scores 3602 versus 1950, an 84.7% lead. R20 single-core shows a 51.7% lead (1512 versus 997), and R15 single-core shows a 20.1% lead (362 versus 301.5). This suggests the Core 7's 5.40 GHz boost clock outperforms the Ultra 9's 5.10 GHz boost in Cinebench's specific workload.

The Ultra 9's wins are narrower. PassMark single-thread shows 4274 versus 3568, a 16.5% lead. PassMark find prime numbers shows 195 versus 140, a 28.2% lead. Extended instructions are nearly tied, with the Core 7 winning by only 8.7% (16974 versus 15613). The physics test also favors the Core 7 by 18.4% (1938 versus 1637).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1.40 GHz for the Core 7 and 3.30 GHz for the Ultra 9. Boost clocks are 5.40 GHz for the Core 7 and 5.10 GHz for the Ultra 9. The TDP is 45 watts for the Core 7 and 30 watts for the Ultra 9.

Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 7, Intel BGA 2833 for the Ultra 9. The process nodes are 10 nm (Intel) and 3 nm (TSMC), respectively. Cache sizes differ at every level: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core, L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core, and L3 is 36 MB shared versus 12 MB shared.

Memory support is DDR4/DDR5 for the Core 7 versus LPDDR5X for the Ultra 9. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s. ECC support is present on the Core 7 only. PCIe lanes are 16 for the Core 7 versus 4 for the Ultra 9. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc 140V. The Core 7 has a launch MSRP of $384; the Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP. The die size is 215 mm² for the Core 7, with no recorded die size for the Ultra 9.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE wins with a score of 25518 versus 10178 for the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V, a delta of 150.7%.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark single-thread (4274 versus 3568) and PassMark find prime numbers (195 versus 140). These are the only two unique wins out of 17 tests.

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

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has a TDP of 30 watts.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V does not.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth specifications compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has a higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s, while the Intel Core 7 251TE has 89.6 GB/s.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a decisive split. The Intel Core 7 251TE is the superior processor for multi-threaded workloads, with overwhelming leads in Cinebench multi-core, PassMark integer math, data compression, and encryption. Its 24-core, 32-thread configuration, combined with a 5.40 GHz boost clock, delivers results that the Core Ultra 9 288V cannot approach in any parallel task. The average benchmark score of 41650 for the Core 7 places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9's 23219 average places it in the 76th percentile.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the better choice for single-threaded, efficiency-focused tasks. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4274 exceeds the Core 7's 3568 by 16.5%, and its prime number test win indicates a strong per-core integer performance. The 3 nm TSMC process and 30 watt TDP make it a more efficient mobile part, though the data does not include power efficiency metrics.

For any user running rendering, compilation, data processing, or multi-threaded applications, the Core 7 251TE is the clear selection. For users with lightly threaded workloads that prioritize single-core speed, the Core Ultra 9 288V is the better fit. The data shows no ambiguity: the Core 7 wins 14 of 17 tests, and the three wins for the Ultra 9 are all in single-thread or specialized integer domains. The percentile rankings confirm this, with the Core 7 at 88 versus the Ultra 9 at 76. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload scales with cores or relies on a single fast core.