Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus are near-identical twins from the Arrow Lake Refresh family, sharing the same core configuration, clock speeds, and memory support. However, benchmark results reveal a fascinating divergence in performance across different test suites, making the choice between them less straightforward than their specifications suggest. The data indicates that while the 250K Plus wins the majority of head-to-head comparisons, the 250KF Plus delivers a decisive victory in a specific set of high-profile workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the data is the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, where the 250KF Plus scores 42,718 against the 250K Plus’s 30,867. This represents a 27.7% advantage for the 250KF Plus, a massive swing in a benchmark that typically scales with sustained multi-threaded performance. This is not an isolated anomaly. In the Cinebench R15 single-core test, the 250KF Plus scores 607 versus 328 for the 250K Plus, a staggering 46% delta. Similarly, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the 250KF Plus wins by 62.5% with a score of 6,030 compared to 2,261. These are not small margins; they indicate a fundamental difference in how the two processors handle these specific workloads.

The 250K Plus, however, is the clear victor in the remaining fourteen head-to-head comparisons. Its wins are consistent across the PassMark suite, with the largest margin coming in the physics test, where it scores 3,494 against 3,183, a 9.8% advantage. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the 250K Plus takes a 7.8% lead with a score of 4,640 versus 4,305. The Cinebench R20 tests are closer, with the 250K Plus winning both multi-core (18,442 vs 17,941) and single-core (2,603 vs 2,532) by 2.8%. Across the PassMark integer math, floating point math, and extended instructions tests, the 250K Plus leads by margins of 1.7%, 1.8%, and 3.9%, respectively. The pattern is clear: the 250K Plus is consistently ahead in a broad swath of general-purpose and math-oriented benchmarks, while the 250KF Plus dominates in Cinebench’s rendering workloads.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the 250K Plus holds a slight edge with an average of 66,855 compared to the 250KF Plus’s 66,159, a delta of 1.1%. This places the 250K Plus in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 4465P, which scores 66,925 and is only 0.1% ahead. The 250KF Plus also sits in the 93rd percentile, with its closest competitor being the Intel Core 9 273PQE at 66,099, just 0.1% behind. When comparing the two directly, the 250K Plus’s average score is 1.1% higher, but this aggregate figure masks the extreme variance seen in the individual Cinebench tests.

The PassMark single-thread test shows the 250K Plus winning by 1.3% (4,757 vs 4,698), a much smaller margin than the Cinebench single-core results. This discrepancy suggests that the performance gap in single-threaded tasks is highly workload-specific. The 250KF Plus’s massive wins in Cinebench R23 single-core (62.5%) and R15 single-core (46%) are not replicated in PassMark’s single-thread test, where it loses. This indicates that the 250KF Plus’s advantage is not a general property of single-threaded execution, but rather something specific to the Cinebench rendering engine.

Architecture Differences

On paper, the two processors are architecturally identical. Both are built on the 3 nm TSMC process node and feature the Arrow Lake Refresh codename. They share the same die size of 243 mm² and contain 17,800 million transistors. The core configuration is identical: 18 cores and 18 threads. There are no differences in cache hierarchy, with both featuring 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The base clock is 4.20 GHz and the boost clock is 5.30 GHz for both. The TDP is also the same at 125 watts.

The only architectural difference listed in the data is the integrated graphics. The 250K Plus includes an Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU iGPU, while the 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (listed as "N/A"). This single hardware difference is the most likely explanation for the benchmark divergence. The presence of the iGPU on the 250K Plus could affect power delivery, thermals, or how the CPU allocates resources under load, even when the iGPU is not actively being used for display output. The 250KF Plus, by omitting the iGPU, might have a different power profile that allows it to sustain higher clocks in certain workloads, particularly those that are short and bursty like Cinebench R23 single-core. The data strongly suggests that the iGPU is not a neutral addition; it correlates with a significant performance penalty in the 250K Plus for Cinebench workloads.

Both processors support DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, and both support ECC memory. They use the same Intel Socket 1851 and provide PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Both have an unlocked multiplier and are produced for the desktop market segment. The release date for both is identical, and both are currently listed as "Active" in production status.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear, if unusual, picture. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the more consistent performer, winning 14 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. It is ahead in every PassMark test, including the multi-thread test (51,596 vs 50,146), the data compression test (568,721 vs 553,155), and the encryption test (42,144 vs 41,292). Its margins are generally small, ranging from 1.3% to 9.8%, but they are consistent. For users whose workloads resemble the PassMark suite—integer math, floating point math, physics simulations, and general data processing—the 250K Plus is the safer choice based on the data.

However, the 250KF Plus’s victories are not marginal. The 27.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 62.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core are enormous. If a user’s primary application is 3D rendering or other Cinebench-like workloads, the 250KF Plus is overwhelmingly the better performer. The data suggests that the absence of the integrated graphics unit is a tangible advantage in these specific scenarios. The 250KF Plus also offers a lower launch MSRP of $184 compared to $199 for the 250K Plus. For a user building a system with a dedicated graphics card who prioritizes rendering performance, the 250KF Plus is the data-driven choice. For a user who needs integrated graphics for troubleshooting, basic display output, or media encoding, the 250K Plus provides that functionality while still delivering strong, consistent performance across the majority of benchmark tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in only two fields in the specification data: integrated graphics and launch MSRP. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus features an integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics. The 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199, while the 250KF Plus is listed at $184. All other specifications—cores, threads, clocks, cache, TDP, socket, memory support, and process node—are identical.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a higher average benchmark score of 66,855, compared to 66,159 for the 250KF Plus, a difference of 1.1%.

Q: Is the performance difference consistent across all workloads?

A: No. The 250K Plus wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests, but the 250KF Plus wins the Cinebench R15 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core tests by significant margins (46%, 27.7%, and 62.5%, respectively).

Q: What is the main architectural difference between the two CPUs?

A: The only architectural difference is the presence of integrated graphics. The 250K Plus includes an Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics unit.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and socket?

A: Yes. Both support DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and both use the Intel Socket 1851.

Q: How do they compare to other CPUs in the database?

A: Both processors are in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The 250K Plus’s closest rival is the AMD EPYC 4465P, which is 0.1% ahead. The 250KF Plus’s closest rival is the Intel Core 9 273PQE, which is 0.1% behind.

Q: Are the core counts and clock speeds the same?

A: Yes. Both have 18 cores and 18 threads, a base clock of 4.20 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The TDP is also 125 watts for both.