Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every single head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V, recording 17 wins and zero losses. The average benchmark score for the 250K Plus is 66855, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the 288V averages 23219 and sits in the 76th percentile. These are not close results; the 250K Plus is 193.1% ahead in Cinebench R15 multicore, 203.3% ahead in Cinebench R23 multicore, and 205.4% ahead in PassMark random string sorting. The 288V is a mobile part with a 30 W TDP and 8 threads, while the 250K Plus is a desktop part with 18 threads and a 125 W TDP. The verdict is that anyone needing heavy multi-threaded throughput should choose the 250K Plus without hesitation. The 288V only makes sense in scenarios where the mobile form factor, the 136.5 GB/s memory bandwidth, and the integrated Arc 140V graphics are the primary requirements, but based purely on CPU benchmark scores, the 250K Plus dominates.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from the same Core Ultra Series 2 family but target entirely different segments. The 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and belongs to the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation. The 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and belongs to the Ultra 9 (Lunar Lake) generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The 250K Plus is a desktop processor with 18 cores and 18 threads, a base clock of 4.20 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. It fits into Intel Socket 1851 and has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. Its cache configuration consists of 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth and includes ECC memory support. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The part carries a launch MSRP of $199.

The 288V is a mobile processor with 8 cores and 8 threads, a base clock of 3.30 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. It uses Intel BGA 2833 socket and does not have an unlocked multiplier. Its cache is smaller: 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. It supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus with 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth, which is higher than the 250K Plus despite the lower core count. It does not support ECC memory. The integrated graphics are Arc 140V. The 250K Plus offers Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 288V offers Gen 5 PCIe with only 4 lanes (CPU only). The 250K Plus has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the 288V does not have recorded transistor or die size figures.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The 250K Plus leads by 193.1% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 160.9% in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 203.3% in Cinebench R23 multicore. In PassMark multithread, the lead is 160.5%.

Q: Does the 288V win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data records 17 wins for the 250K Plus and 0 wins for the 288V across all tested workloads.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The 250K Plus wins single-core tests by smaller margins. It leads by 8.8% in Cinebench R15 singlecore, 161.1% in Cinebench R20 singlecore, 15.9% in Cinebench R23 singlecore, and 11.3% in PassMark single thread.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 W, while the 288V has a TDP of 30 W. This reflects the desktop versus mobile design targets.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The 250K Plus supports ECC memory. The 288V does not.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 18 (250K Plus) versus 8 (288V)
• Threads: 18 (250K Plus) versus 8 (288V)
• Base Clock: 4.20 GHz (250K Plus) versus 3.30 GHz (288V)
• Boost Clock: 5.30 GHz (250K Plus) versus 5.10 GHz (288V)
• TDP: 125 W (250K Plus) versus 30 W (288V)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1851 (250K Plus) versus Intel BGA 2833 (288V)
• Codename: Arrow Lake Refresh (250K Plus) versus Lunar Lake (288V)
• Generation: Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) (250K Plus) versus Ultra 9 (Lunar Lake) (288V)
• L2 Cache: 3 MB per core (250K Plus) versus 2.5 MB per core (288V)
• L3 Cache: 30 MB shared (250K Plus) versus 12 MB shared (288V)
• Memory Support: DDR5 (250K Plus) versus LPDDR5X (288V)
• Memory Bandwidth: 115.2 GB/s (250K Plus) versus 136.5 GB/s (288V)
• ECC Memory: true (250K Plus) versus false (288V)
• PCIe Lanes: 20 lanes (250K Plus) versus 4 lanes (288V)
• Integrated Graphics: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU (250K Plus) versus Arc 140V (288V)
• Market Segment: Desktop (250K Plus) versus Mobile (288V)
• Release Date: 2026-03-10 (250K Plus) versus 2024-09-23 (288V)
• Launch MSRP: $199 (250K Plus) versus null (288V)
• Multiplier Unlocked: true (250K Plus) versus false (288V)
• Transistors: 17,800 million (250K Plus) versus null (288V)
• Die Size: 243 mm² (250K Plus) versus null (288V)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the 250K Plus. The largest margin is in PassMark random string sorting, where the 250K Plus scores 69090 against 22622, a 205.4% difference. PassMark data compression shows a 204.9% lead (568721 versus 186521). Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 203.3% lead (30867 versus 10178). PassMark data encryption shows a 198% lead (42144 versus 14141). PassMark extended instructions shows a 185.4% lead (44565 versus 15613). PassMark integer math shows a 184.2% lead (125091 versus 44019). PassMark floating point math shows a 173.3% lead (162692 versus 59536). Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 160.9% lead (18442 versus 7069). PassMark multithread shows a 160.5% lead (51596 versus 19810). Cinebench R20 singlecore shows a 161.1% lead (2603 versus 997). PassMark find prime numbers shows a 149.2% lead (486 versus 195). PassMark physics shows a 113.4% lead (3494 versus 1637).

The single-core margins are narrower but still favor the 250K Plus. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows a 15.9% lead (2261 versus 1950). PassMark single thread shows an 11.3% lead (4757 versus 4274). Cinebench R15 singlecore shows the smallest gap at 8.8% (328 versus 301.5). Even the closest result is a clear win for the desktop part.

Where Each One Wins

The 250K Plus wins in every recorded benchmark category. It delivers 203.3% more performance in Cinebench R23 multicore, 204.9% more in data compression, and 198% more in data encryption. The 288V has no benchmark wins in the database, so any use-case analysis must rely on specification differences rather than measured performance.

The 250K Plus is the choice for multi-threaded desktop workloads: rendering, simulation, compilation, or any task that uses the full 18 threads. The data shows it is also faster in single-threaded tests, so there is no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the 288V outperforms it. The 288V does offer a higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s, a lower TDP of 30 W versus 125 W, and a different integrated graphics solution (Arc 140V versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU). These features may matter in a mobile context, but the benchmark database does not include any workload where the 288V comes out ahead.

The 288V also has a smaller physical footprint requirement, using Intel BGA 2833 rather than the desktop socket 1851, and it does not have an unlocked multiplier. The 250K Plus supports ECC memory, which the 288V does not. The 250K Plus has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes compared to 4 lanes on the 288V, a significant difference for expansion. For any user prioritizing CPU compute performance, the 250K Plus is the definitive winner across all 17 recorded tests.