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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear split between the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX, with the desktop part winning 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons and the mobile part taking 4. The most dramatic divergence appears in the Cinebench suite, where the two processors dominate different workloads by large margins.

In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 5737, which is 60.6% ahead of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus's 2261. This is the single largest delta in either direction across all tests. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 265HX posts 578 versus 328, a 43.3% advantage. However, the Ultra 5 250K Plus strikes back in Cinebench R20 single-core with 2603 against 2409, an 8.1% win, while the R23 multi-core result flips the script entirely: the 265HX scores 40642, which is 24.1% ahead of the 250K Plus's 30867.

The multi-core picture is otherwise dominated by the Ultra 5. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 250K Plus scores 4640 versus 4096, a 13.3% lead. In R20 multi-core, it posts 18442 against 17069, an 8% advantage. The PassMark suite reinforces this trend. The 250K Plus wins data compression with 568721 versus 511817 (11.1% ahead), data encryption with 42144 versus 39472 (6.8% ahead), extended instructions with 44565 versus 40741 (9.4% ahead), and find prime numbers with 486 versus 406 (19.7% ahead). The multithread test also favors the desktop chip: 51596 versus 47985, a 7.5% margin.

Physics testing shows a 17.3% win for the 250K Plus (3494 versus 2978), and random string sorting goes to it by 10.6% (69090 versus 62458). Floating point math is nearly a tie, with the 250K Plus at 162692 and the 265HX at 161605, a 0.7% edge. The 265HX takes integer math by a narrow 1.5% margin, 126954 versus 125091. In the single-thread PassMark tests, the 250K Plus leads 4757 to 4500, a 5.7% gap.

The average benchmark scores place these two chips in the same percentile bracket. The 250K Plus carries an average score of 66855 and sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The 265HX averages 63173, also at the 93rd percentile. The nearest recorded rivals for the 250K Plus include the AMD EPYC 4465P (avg 66925, delta -0.1%), the Intel Xeon 6515P (avg 67006, delta -0.2%), the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX (avg 67469, delta -0.9%), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus (avg 66159, delta 1.1%). For the 265HX, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-13790F (avg 63080, delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G (avg 63331, delta -0.2%), the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (avg 62839, delta 0.5%), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX (avg 62738, delta 0.7%). The data confirms both processors perform within a tight band of their immediate competition, with no rival exceeding a 1.1% delta in either direction.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the stronger all-around performer in this pairing, winning 13 of 17 tests and holding a 5.8% higher average benchmark score (66855 versus 63173). The desktop chip leads in the majority of multi-threaded and synthetic workloads, including Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, PassMark multithread, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread PassMark. Its 13.3% margin in R15 multi-core and 8% margin in R20 multi-core show a consistent advantage in sustained rendering tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is not without its strengths. Its Cinebench R23 results are exceptional: 40642 in multi-core (24.1% ahead) and 5737 in single-core (60.6% ahead). The R23 single-core score is the largest absolute win in the entire comparison, and the R15 single-core score of 578 also dominates. The mobile chip wins integer math by 1.5%, a narrow but measurable edge.

The choice between the two depends entirely on the workload profile. Data from the Cinebench R23 suite shows the 265HX has a significant advantage in that specific rendering benchmark, both single and multi-threaded. The 250K Plus wins almost everything else, including the older Cinebench versions and the full PassMark suite. For users whose primary application is Cinebench R23, the 265HX is the clear pick. For broader multi-threaded productivity, compression, encryption, or physics workloads, the 250K Plus delivers superior results in 13 of the 17 measured tests. The 93rd percentile ranking for both chips means neither is a weak performer relative to the broader CPU landscape.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus averages 66855, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX averages 63173, a difference of approximately 5.8%.

Q: In which benchmark does the Core Ultra 7 265HX show its largest advantage?

A: The 265HX leads by 60.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 5737 versus the 250K Plus's 2261.

Q: How many head-to-head tests does each processor win?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 13 tests, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins 4 tests.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two?

A: PassMark floating point math is the tightest margin, with the 250K Plus scoring 162692 and the 265HX scoring 161605, a 0.7% difference.

Q: Do both processors rank in the same percentile among all CPUs?

A: Yes, both the 250K Plus and the 265HX sit at the 93rd percentile versus all CPUs.

Q: Which processor wins the PassMark multithread test?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 51596 versus 47985 for the 265HX, a 7.5% advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX uses 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks diverge significantly: the 250K Plus runs at 4.20 GHz, the 265HX at 2.60 GHz. Boost clocks are identical at 5.30 GHz for both. Thermal design power also differs sharply, with the 250K Plus rated at 125 W and the 265HX at 55 W.

The socket types are different: the 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 265HX uses Intel BGA 2114. The market segment reflects this, with the 250K Plus listed as Desktop and the 265HX as Mobile. The 250K Plus supports ECC memory, the 265HX does not. Memory bandwidth also varies: the 250K Plus delivers 115.2 GB/s, the 265HX delivers 102.4 GB/s. The release dates are distinct, with the 250K Plus launching on 2026-03-10 and the 265HX on 2025-01-12. The 250K Plus carries a launch MSRP of $199 and part number SA4UZ; the 265HX has no recorded launch MSRP and part number SRVFH. Both processors are unlocked for multiplier adjustment, and both have a production status of Active.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 and use the same 3 nm process node from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size. The codenames differ: the 250K Plus is Arrow Lake Refresh, while the 265HX is Arrow Lake-HX. The 250K Plus generation is listed as "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)", and the 265HX generation is "Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-HX)". The 265HX has an explicit architecture field of Arrow Lake, while the 250K Plus has no architecture field recorded.

Cache configurations are identical: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Both support DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus. Both use PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are the same on both: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The core count difference (18 versus 20) is the primary architectural divergence, alongside the base clock and TDP differences. The 265HX's lower TDP of 55 W suggests a power-optimized design despite having more cores, while the 250K Plus's 125 W TDP aligns with a desktop-focused configuration.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus claims the majority of workload categories. It wins all PassMark tests except integer math, including data compression (568721), data encryption (42144), extended instructions (44565), find prime numbers (486), floating point math (162692), multithread (51596), physics (3494), random string sorting (69090), and single-thread (4757). It also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (4640) and R20 multi-core (18442). These results make it the preferred choice for general productivity, data processing, encryption tasks, compression workloads, and physics simulations. Its 13.3% lead in R15 multi-core and 8% lead in R20 multi-core show strength in older rendering benchmarks.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (40642) and single-core (5737), plus Cinebench R15 single-core (578) and PassMark integer math (126954). The 60.6% margin in R23 single-core is the standout result, indicating exceptional per-thread performance in that specific workload. The 24.1% lead in R23 multi-core is also substantial. The 265HX is therefore the stronger option for Cinebench R23 rendering and integer-heavy math operations. Its 4 wins are concentrated but decisive in those areas, with the R23 results representing the most dramatic performance gaps recorded in this comparison.