Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 7 266V Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus records an average benchmark score of 66855, which places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V records an average score of 23297, placing it in the 76th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by 178.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 165.4% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 86.6% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The PassMark multithread score shows a 165.1% advantage for the desktop chip.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 266V win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes, it wins exactly one of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 7 266V scores 2335 versus 2261 for the Ultra 5 250K Plus, a 3.2% advantage.

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

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Core Ultra 7 266V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading.

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

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a 125 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 7 266V has a 17 W TDP. The mobile chip consumes substantially less power, while the desktop chip delivers far higher throughput.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 7 266V uses the Arc 140V. The database does not include a direct graphics benchmark comparison between them.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear, lopsided outcome. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 66855 versus 23297 for the Core Ultra 7 266V. The desktop part sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the mobile part sits in the 76th percentile. Any user whose priority is raw compute should select the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

The single exception is the Cinebench R23 single-core test, where the Core Ultra 7 266V leads by 3.2%. That result does little to offset the desktop chip's dominance in every other category, including PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 5 leads by 20.6%. The mobile processor's 17 W TDP makes it the appropriate choice for systems where power draw and thermal output are the primary constraints, such as thin laptops. The desktop chip's 125 W TDP and Socket 1851 requirement point to a traditional tower system.

The data also shows that the Ultra 5 250K Plus sits close to several server-class rivals in the database. It trails the AMD EPYC 4465P by 0.1% in average score, trails the Intel Xeon 6515P by 0.2%, and trails the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX by 0.9%. It leads the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus by 1.1%. The Core Ultra 7 266V, by contrast, sits within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H, the Intel Core i9-11900F, the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V, and the AMD EPYC 4124P. The desktop chip competes at a much higher performance tier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus comes in PassMark data compression, where it scores 568721 against 187050, a 204% advantage. Data encryption shows a 204.9% lead, with scores of 42144 versus 13822. Integer math follows closely at 201%, with 125091 against 41558. Random string sorting delivers a 201.6% lead, 69090 versus 22905.

The Cinebench suite tells a similar story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 4640 against 1667, a 178.3% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 18442 versus 6948, a 165.4% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the gap is 165.6%, with scores of 2603 and 980. Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows the gap to 86.6%, with 30867 against 16544. The only Cinebench test where the mobile chip wins is R23 single-core, 2335 versus 2261, a 3.2% edge.

PassMark floating point math shows 162692 versus 56923, a 185.8% lead. Extended instructions favor the desktop chip by 179.8%, with 44565 versus 15928. PassMark multithread shows 51596 versus 19461, a 165.1% lead. Physics tests favor the Ultra 5 by 117.3%, 3494 versus 1608. Find prime numbers shows a 154.5% lead, 486 versus 191. PassMark single-thread shows a 20.6% lead, 4757 versus 3943.

The consistent pattern across every workload type confirms that the desktop chip's advantage is not limited to multi-threaded tasks. Even in single-threaded PassMark tests, the Ultra 5 leads by double digits. The only single-core exception appears in Cinebench R23, where the Lunar Lake architecture's efficiency cores and higher boost behavior produce a narrow win.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 266V uses 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 4.20 GHz versus 2.20 GHz. Boost clocks are 5.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP is 125 W versus 17 W.

The socket is a major differentiator. The desktop part uses Intel Socket 1851, while the mobile part uses Intel BGA 2833, which means the Ultra 7 266V is soldered and not upgradeable. The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra 5 250K Plus, while the Ultra 7 266V is locked. The desktop chip supports ECC memory; the mobile chip does not.

Memory bandwidth favors the mobile chip, with 136.5 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s for the desktop part, though both use dual-channel memory. The desktop chip supports DDR5, while the mobile chip supports LPDDR5X with capacity depending on the motherboard. PCIe lane allocation differs sharply: the Ultra 5 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 offers Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

The launch MSRP of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is $199. The Core Ultra 7 266V has no launch MSRP in the database. The desktop part was released on 2026-03-10, while the mobile part was released on 2024-09-23. Both are listed as Active production status.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh microarchitecture, under the Core Ultra Series 2 family. The Core Ultra 7 266V uses the Lunar Lake microarchitecture, also under Core Ultra Series 2. Both are built on a 3 nm process at TSMC.

Cache layouts differ substantially. Both share a 192 KB L1 per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the desktop chip versus 2.5 MB per core on the mobile chip. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the Ultra 5 250K Plus versus 12 MB on the Ultra 7 266V. The desktop chip carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Lunar Lake part.

Memory architecture reflects their different design goals. The desktop chip uses external DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, while the mobile chip uses LPDDR5X tied to the motherboard. The mobile chip's higher memory bandwidth, 136.5 GB/s, suggests an integrated memory controller optimized for compact platforms. The desktop chip's larger L3 and per-core L2, combined with 18 cores, explains its heavy lead in multi-threaded workloads.

The integrated graphics also differ, with the Ultra 5 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics at 64 EU and the Ultra 7 using Arc 140V. Both belong to Intel's Arc family, but the database does not provide comparative graphics scores.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in every scenario that demands raw processing throughput. Multi-core render workloads, data compression, encryption, integer and floating point math, physics simulation, and random string sorting all favor the desktop chip by margins from 86.6% to 204.9%. Its 18 cores, 30 MB L3 cache, and 5.30 GHz boost clock deliver results that place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The unlocked multiplier makes it suitable for systems where the user intends to adjust clock behavior, and the 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes support high-bandwidth expansion.

The Core Ultra 7 266V wins in exactly one recorded benchmark: Cinebench R23 single-core. That result, a 3.2% edge over the desktop part, indicates competitive single-thread efficiency in that specific test. Its 17 W TDP and BGA 2833 socket make it the only viable choice among these two for battery-powered or fanless designs. The mobile chip also delivers higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s, which may benefit memory-sensitive tasks in a constrained power envelope.

The data does not support any scenario where the mobile chip outperforms the desktop chip in sustained compute. The 16-to-1 win count, the 43558-point gap in average benchmark score, and the percentile difference of 17 points all point in the same direction. Choose the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus for desktop builds where power is available and performance is the goal. Choose the Core Ultra 7 266V for mobile platforms where the 17 W TDP and soldered design fit the physical and thermal constraints of a laptop chassis.