Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits these two desktop processors into distinct roles, and the choice depends on whether the workload favors single-thread speed or a specific mix of multi-thread and floating-point performance. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins 5. However, the magnitude of those wins matters more than the count.

The Ultra 5 250K Plus is the pick for users whose applications are sensitive to data compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, prime number finding, physics simulation, random string sorting, and general multithreaded throughput. It also edges out the Ultra 7 265F in Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core, and in the PassMark single-thread test by a razor-thin margin. Its most decisive victory is in PassMark data compression, where it leads by 12.2%, and in extended instructions, where it leads by 13.6%.

The Ultra 7 265F, despite fewer overall wins, takes the two most dramatic victories. It crushes the Ultra 5 250K Plus in Cinebench R23 single-core by 61.8% (5926 vs 2261) and in Cinebench R15 single-core by 45.1% (597 vs 328). It also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 26.5% (41980 vs 30867), which is a substantial margin for a lower-clocked part. In PassMark floating-point math and integer math, it leads by 6.4% and 9.4% respectively.

The data suggests the Ultra 5 250K Plus is the more balanced all-rounder for mixed workloads, while the Ultra 7 265F is specifically strong in Cinebench R23 and mathematical integer/floating-point tasks. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has a higher base clock (4.20 GHz vs 2.40 GHz) and an unlocked multiplier, while the Ultra 7 265F has two more cores (20 vs 18) and a locked multiplier. Both sit at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating that either choice places the user in the top tier of available processors.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, are built on the same 3 nm TSMC process, and share the same transistor count of 17,800 million and die size of 243 mm². The Ultra 5 250K Plus carries the codename Arrow Lake Refresh, while the Ultra 7 265F uses Arrow Lake-S. Both use the Intel Socket 1851.

The core configuration differs: the Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. Neither part uses simultaneous multithreading, so threads equal cores in both cases. The cache hierarchy is identical on paper: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

The integrated graphics situation is a major divergence. The Ultra 5 250K Plus includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). This means the Ultra 5 250K Plus can drive a display without a discrete GPU, whereas the Ultra 7 265F requires a separate graphics card.

Memory support differs in bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and dual-channel operation, but the Ultra 5 250K Plus has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7 265F. The Ultra 5 250K Plus also supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 7 265F does not. Both use PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

The release dates are different: the Ultra 7 265F launched on 2025-01-06, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus launched on 2026-03-10. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, making it the overclocking-friendly option, while the Ultra 7 265F is locked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results tell a conflicting story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 4640 to 4231, a 9.7% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it wins again 18442 to 17631, a 4.6% margin. But in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 265F reverses the trend with a decisive 41980 vs 30867 victory, a 26.5% advantage. This suggests that the longer the multi-core render workload runs, the more the Ultra 7 265F pulls ahead, likely due to its two additional cores.

Single-core Cinebench results are even more lopsided. The Ultra 7 265F wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 45.1% (597 vs 328) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 61.8% (5926 vs 2261). However, in Cinebench R20 single-core, the Ultra 5 250K Plus wins by 4.6% (2603 vs 2488). This is a peculiar pattern: the Ultra 7 265F dominates in R15 and R23 single-core, but loses in R20. The PassMark single-thread test shows a near tie, with the Ultra 5 250K Plus at 4757 and the Ultra 7 265F at 4750, a 0.1% difference.

In PassMark workloads, the Ultra 5 250K Plus wins data compression (568721 vs 507018, +12.2%), data encryption (42144 vs 39468, +6.8%), extended instructions (44565 vs 39235, +13.6%), find prime numbers (486 vs 416, +16.8%), multithread (51596 vs 49410, +4.4%), physics (3494 vs 3172, +10.2%), and random string sorting (69090 vs 62439, +10.7%). The Ultra 7 265F wins floating-point math (173855 vs 162692, +6.4%) and integer math (138078 vs 125091, +9.4%).

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in several key specifications. The core count is 18 for the Ultra 5 250K Plus and 20 for the Ultra 7 265F. Thread counts match core counts at 18 and 20 respectively. Base clocks differ substantially: 4.20 GHz for the Ultra 5 250K Plus versus 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7 265F. Both share the same 5.30 GHz boost clock.

Thermal design power is very different: the Ultra 5 250K Plus is rated at 125 W TDP, while the Ultra 7 265F is rated at 65 W TDP. This means the Ultra 7 265F draws less power at the specification level, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus has a higher power envelope to support its higher base clock.

Memory bandwidth differs: 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 5 250K Plus versus 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7 265F. ECC memory support is present on the Ultra 5 250K Plus but absent on the Ultra 7 265F. Integrated graphics are present on the Ultra 5 250K Plus (Arc Xe-LPG 64EU) and absent on the Ultra 7 265F.

The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra 5 250K Plus and locked on the Ultra 7 265F. The architecture codenames differ: Arrow Lake Refresh for the Ultra 5 250K Plus and Arrow Lake-S for the Ultra 7 265F. The generation labels also differ, with the Ultra 5 250K Plus listed as "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)" and the Ultra 7 265F as "Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake)". Release dates are about 14 months apart, with the Ultra 7 265F launching first.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz, significantly higher than the 2.40 GHz base clock of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F. Both share the same 5.30 GHz boost clock.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F have integrated graphics?

A: No, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F lists integrated graphics as N/A. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F does not.

Q: Which processor is unlocked for overclocking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is locked.

Q: Which processor has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66855, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has an average score of 64438. The Ultra 5 250K Plus is 3.7% higher.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. Its largest margins come in extended instructions (+13.6%), data compression (+12.2%), random string sorting (+10.7%), physics (+10.2%), and find prime numbers (+16.8%). It also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (+9.7%), Cinebench R20 multi-core (+4.6%), Cinebench R20 single-core (+4.6%), data encryption (+6.8%), PassMark multithread (+4.4%), and PassMark single-thread (+0.1%). This pattern indicates strength in security-related workloads, compression, physics simulation, and general parallel throughput. Its higher base clock and unlocked multiplier make it the choice for users who want to push performance manually.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins 5 tests but with very large margins in several. Its Cinebench R23 single-core win is massive at 61.8% over the Ultra 5 250K Plus, and its Cinebench R15 single-core win is 45.1%. It also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 26.5%, which is a major result for a 65 W part. In PassMark floating-point math it leads by 6.4%, and in integer math by 9.4%. These results suggest the Ultra 7 265F is particularly strong in rendering tasks that use Cinebench R23, and in numerical math workloads. Its lower TDP of 65 W versus 125 W also makes it the more power-efficient choice on paper.

For a user deciding between the two, the data points to the Ultra 5 250K Plus for a broad range of everyday and productivity tasks, especially those involving compression, encryption, and physics. The Ultra 7 265F is the better choice for Cinebench-style rendering and math-heavy workloads, where its two extra cores and specific architectural optimizations deliver substantial wins. The lack of integrated graphics on the Ultra 7 265F is a practical consideration: it requires a discrete GPU, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus can operate on its own.