Intel Core i3-14100F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every multi-core benchmark in the database. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 30,867 versus 13,084 for the Core i3-14100F, a 57.6% advantage.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The Ultra 5 250K Plus leads in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2,261 against 1,847, a delta of 18.3%. PassMark single-thread shows 4,757 versus 3,778, a 20.6% gap.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Core i3-14100F has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Ultra 5 has no hyper-threading, while the i3 uses simultaneous multi-threading.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-14100F and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus have ECC memory support enabled in the database.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The Core i3-14100F uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Ultra 5 also has a larger die at 243 mm² versus 163 mm².

Q: What is the launch MSRP for each part?

A: The Intel Core i3-14100F has a launch MSRP of $109. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design generations. The Core i3-14100F is part of the Raptor Lake Refresh family, using the Raptor Lake-R codename and built on Intel's 10 nm node. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs to the Arrow Lake Refresh line, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process, with the codename Arrow Lake Refresh.

The core configuration differences are stark. The i3-14100F offers 4 physical cores with 8 threads via hyper-threading. The Ultra 5 250K Plus provides 18 physical cores and 18 threads, meaning it does not rely on simultaneous multi-threading to reach its thread count. This is a fundamental architectural shift: the Ultra 5 uses more physical cores instead of extra threads per core.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The i3-14100F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 pool on the Ultra 5, 30 MB versus 12 MB, directly supports its higher core count and multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support diverges as well. The i3-14100F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Ultra 5 250K Plus is DDR5-only, also dual-channel, but records a memory bandwidth figure of 115.2 GB/s. The i3 has no listed memory bandwidth in the database.

PCIe connectivity differs. The i3-14100F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 5 250K Plus offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, giving it four additional lanes for expansion or storage devices.

Integrated graphics are present only on the Ultra 5 250K Plus. It includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The i3-14100F has no integrated graphics, meaning a discrete GPU is mandatory for display output.

The transistor count on the Ultra 5 250K Plus is 17,800 million, while the i3-14100F has no transistor figure listed in the database. The Ultra 5 also has an unlocked multiplier, while the i3-14100F is locked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17. The i3-14100F does not win a single test. The largest margin comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 scores 486 against 61, a delta of 87.4%. This is an extreme example of the Ultra 5's raw compute advantage in integer-heavy tasks.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 4,640 versus 1,318, a 71.6% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows 18,442 versus 5,495, a 70.2% delta. The R23 multi-core result narrows the relative gap to 57.6%, with the Ultra 5 at 30,867 and the i3 at 13,084. The multi-core advantage stays consistently above 57% across all three Cinebench versions.

Single-core Cinebench results show a smaller but still decisive gap. In R15, the Ultra 5 scores 328 versus 186, a 43.3% lead. In R20, the scores are 2,603 versus 775, a 70.2% delta. In R23, the Ultra 5 reaches 2,261 versus 1,847, an 18.3% lead. The R20 single-core result is especially lopsided, showing a 3.36x score ratio.

PassMark tests reveal the broad nature of the Ultra 5's dominance. Data compression shows 568,721 versus 176,106, a 69% lead. Data encryption delivers 42,144 versus 8,922, a 78.8% gap. Extended instructions score 44,565 versus 11,984, a 73.1% delta. Floating point math hits 162,692 versus 35,370, a 78.3% lead.

Integer math shows 125,091 versus 45,357, a 63.7% advantage for the Ultra 5. The multithread PassMark test records 51,596 versus 15,420, a 70.1% delta. Physics tests show 3,494 versus 1,077, a 69.2% gap. Random string sorting delivers 69,090 versus 17,596, a 74.5% lead.

The single-thread PassMark results are the closest race. The Ultra 5 scores 4,757 versus 3,778 for the i3, a 20.6% delta. This remains the narrowest head-to-head margin in the entire comparison, indicating that the i3-14100F is relatively stronger in lightly threaded work even though it still loses.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every hardware specification recorded in the database.

• Cores: 4 (i3-14100F) vs 18 (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Threads: 8 (i3-14100F) vs 18 (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Base Clock: 3.50 GHz (i3-14100F) vs 4.20 GHz (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Boost Clock: 4.70 GHz (i3-14100F) vs 5.30 GHz (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• TDP: 58 W (i3-14100F) vs 125 W (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 (i3-14100F) vs Intel Socket 1851 (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Process Node: 10 nm (i3-14100F) vs 3 nm (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Foundry: Intel (i3-14100F) vs TSMC (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Die Size: 163 mm² (i3-14100F) vs 243 mm² (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core (i3-14100F) vs 192 KB per core (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• L2 Cache: 1.25 MB per core (i3-14100F) vs 3 MB per core (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared (i3-14100F) vs 30 MB shared (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Memory Support: DDR4, DDR5 (i3-14100F) vs DDR5 (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Memory Bandwidth: Not listed (i3-14100F) vs 115.2 GB/s (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• PCIe Lanes: Gen 5, 16 lanes (i3-14100F) vs Gen 5, 20 lanes (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Integrated Graphics: N/A (i3-14100F) vs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Multiplier Unlocked: No (i3-14100F) vs Yes (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Transistors: Not listed (i3-14100F) vs 17,800 million (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Release Date: 2024-01-07 (i3-14100F) vs 2026-03-10 (Ultra 5 250K Plus)
• Part Number: SRMX2 (i3-14100F) vs SA4UZ (Ultra 5 250K Plus)

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus outperforms the Core i3-14100F in every single recorded test. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 5 is 66,855, placing it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The i3-14100F has an average score of 18,519 and sits in the 72nd percentile.

The gap is not marginal. In the closest test, PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 5 leads by 20.6%. In the most extreme test, PassMark find prime numbers, the Ultra 5 leads by 87.4%. The i3-14100F does not win any of the 17 head-to-head comparisons.

The nearest rivals in the database confirm the placement of each chip. The i3-14100F is comparable to the Intel Core i5-13420H, AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE, Intel Core i3-13100, and Intel Core 7 360, all within a 0.8% delta of its average score. The Ultra 5 250K Plus sits alongside the AMD EPYC 4465P, Intel Xeon 6515P, Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with deltas ranging from 1.1% to -0.9%.

The performance class difference is fundamental. The i3-14100F is a 4-core, 8-thread part with a 58 W TDP. The Ultra 5 250K Plus is an 18-core, 18-thread part with a 125 W TDP. The socket difference (Socket 1700 versus Socket 1851) means they are not interchangeable in any system. The i3 is also a locked multiplier part, while the Ultra 5 supports overclocking.

The release dates tell a story of generational separation. The i3-14100F launched on 2024-01-07, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus launched on 2026-03-10. The Ultra 5 benefits from a newer 3 nm TSMC process versus Intel's 10 nm node for the i3.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in every category measured by the database. There are no benchmark wins for the Core i3-14100F across the 17 head-to-head tests. The Ultra 5 leads in single-core, multi-core, encryption, compression, integer math, floating point math, physics, random string sorting, and prime number finding.

The closest margins for the i3-14100F occur in single-threaded tests. The 20.6% delta in PassMark single-thread and the 18.3% delta in Cinebench R23 single-core are the smallest gaps. This suggests the i3-14100F is comparatively less disadvantaged in lightly threaded workloads, but it still loses outright.

The i3-14100F does have attributes that the Ultra 5 lacks. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which gives it broader platform compatibility with existing motherboards and memory kits. Its 58 W TDP is less than half the Ultra 5's 125 W, indicating lower power draw for thermally constrained builds. Its launch MSRP of $109 is lower than the Ultra 5's $199, though the database does not evaluate price-to-performance ratios.

The Ultra 5 250K Plus holds advantages beyond raw performance. It has integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU) while the i3-14100F has none. It offers 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 16. It has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. It supports DDR5 memory with a listed bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. Its 30 MB of L3 cache is 2.5 times the i3's 12 MB.

For builds that prioritize multi-threaded throughput, content creation, or heavy parallel workloads, the database clearly shows the Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers 57.6% to 87.4% higher scores depending on the test. For applications that are mostly single-threaded, the Ultra 5 still leads by roughly 18% to 43%. The only scenario where the i3-14100F appears preferable is when the system requires DDR4 memory support, a lower TDP envelope, or the smaller Socket 1700 platform. In pure benchmark performance, the Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every recorded test.