Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H represent two distinct branches of Intel’s mobile and desktop strategy. The former is a desktop part built on Arrow Lake Refresh, while the latter is a mobile processor from the Panther Lake family. The benchmark data in the database shows a decisive performance gap, with the desktop chip winning every single recorded test, but the mobile chip counters with a vastly different power and feature profile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus across all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The largest margins appear in multi-threaded and data-intensive workloads, where the desktop chip’s higher core count and power envelope deliver substantial advantages.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 250K Plus scores 30,867 against the X7 358H’s 18,747, a delta of 64.7%. This is the largest single-test gap in the entire comparison. The gap narrows significantly in single-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 250K Plus scores 2,261 versus 2,080, a much smaller 8.7% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the delta is 8.8% (328 vs 301.5), and in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the delta is 53.6% (2,603 vs 1,695), though that multi-core-like margin is an outlier.

PassMark results confirm the same trend. The data compression test shows the 250K Plus at 568,721 versus 332,508, a 71% lead. Random string sorting is even closer in percentage terms, with a 71.2% delta (69,090 vs 40,357). Data encryption shows a 61.8% gap (42,144 vs 26,046), and extended instructions show a 63.4% lead (44,565 vs 27,274).

Integer math performance favors the desktop chip by 50.4% (125,091 vs 83,147), while floating-point math shows a 56.7% advantage (162,692 vs 103,842). The find prime numbers test, which is often sensitive to memory latency and cache, shows a 44.2% delta (486 vs 337). The multithread PassMark score is 51,596 for the 250K Plus versus 33,802 for the X7 358H, a 52.6% lead.

The smallest margins appear in physics and single-thread workloads. PassMark physics shows a 15.7% delta (3,494 vs 3,021), and PassMark single-thread shows a 15.3% delta (4,757 vs 4,124). These results indicate that while the desktop chip is faster in every metric, its advantage in lightly threaded, latency-bound tasks is far less pronounced than in heavily parallel workloads.

The average benchmark score in the database places the 250K Plus at 66,855, putting it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The X7 358H averages 40,967, which places it in the 87th percentile. The nearest rival to the 250K Plus is the AMD EPYC 4465P with an average score of 66,925, just 0.1% higher. The Intel Xeon 6515P is 0.2% higher at 67,006, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is 0.9% higher. The closest competitor below it is the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which trails by 1.1%. For the X7 358H, the nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41,208, a 0.6% gap, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at the same 0.6% margin.

Where Each One Wins

The performance data indicates that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the clear winner in every recorded benchmark. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, and math workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30,867 versus 18,747 for the X7 358H shows a 64.7% advantage, which translates directly to faster video rendering, 3D modeling, and compile times. PassMark data compression at 568,721 versus 332,508 indicates a 71% lead in file archiving and database operations. The 61.8% encryption lead (42,144 vs 26,046) points to faster disk encryption and secure network throughput.

The X7 358H, despite losing all tests, has a different set of strengths reflected in the data. Its single-thread scores are closer to the desktop chip, with only an 8.7% deficit in Cinebench R23 single-core and 8.8% in Cinebench R15 single-core. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,124 trails by 15.3%, which is a smaller gap than most multi-threaded tests. The physics score of 3,021 is just 15.7% behind, indicating that for lightly threaded simulation or gaming physics, the mobile chip is relatively competitive.

The mobile chip also uses a 25 TDP compared to the desktop chip’s 125 TDP. This fivefold difference in power consumption is not directly benchmarked, but it implies that the X7 358H can deliver a meaningful fraction of the desktop chip’s performance in a fraction of the power envelope. The database does not record performance-per-watt figures, but the raw scores combined with the TDP ratings suggest that the mobile chip is far more efficient per watt, even if it cannot match absolute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30,867, which is 64.7% higher than the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H’s 18,747.

Q: How close are the two in single-threaded performance?

A: The smallest gaps are in single-thread tests. The 250K Plus leads by 8.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2,261 vs 2,080), 8.8% in Cinebench R15 single-core (328 vs 301.5), and 15.3% in PassMark single-thread (4,757 vs 4,124).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is 71.2% in PassMark random string sorting, where the 250K Plus scores 69,090 against the X7 358H’s 40,357. Data compression is close behind at 71% (568,721 vs 332,508).

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 250K Plus averages 66,855 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The X7 358H averages 40,967 and sits in the 87th percentile.

Q: Does the mobile chip win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the 250K Plus winning all 17 recorded tests. The X7 358H has zero wins in the database.

Q: How does the desktop chip compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 250K Plus is 0.1% behind the AMD EPYC 4465P (66,925), 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon 6515P (67,006), and 0.9% behind the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX (67,469). It is 1.1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus (66,159).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The desktop chip has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to the mobile chip’s 1.90 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The TDP ratings are 125 watts for the desktop part and 25 watts for the mobile part.

The socket types are incompatible: the 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, while the X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. The desktop chip supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The mobile chip supports LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and a higher recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the 250K Plus but not on the X7 358H.

PCIe lane counts differ significantly: the 250K Plus provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the X7 358H provides only 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The integrated graphics are also different: the 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the X7 358H uses an Arc B390. The desktop chip has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the mobile chip does not. The release dates differ, with the X7 358H launching on 2026-01-04 and the 250K Plus launching on 2026-03-10. The 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199; the mobile chip has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is significant. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, listed as generation “Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)”. The Core Ultra X7 358H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake codename, listed as generation “Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H)”. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: the 250K Plus uses TSMC, while the X7 358H uses Intel’s own fabs.

The desktop chip reports 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². No transistor count or die size is recorded for the mobile chip. The cache hierarchy is partially shared: both have 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core. The L3 cache differs, with the 250K Plus offering 30 MB shared versus 18 MB shared on the X7 358H.

The market segments are fundamentally different: the 250K Plus is a desktop part, while the X7 358H is a mobile part. This explains the TDP, socket, and memory differences. The production status for both is listed as Active. The part numbers are SA4UZ for the desktop chip and SA4RAQ9ET for the mobile chip. The memory bandwidth advantage belongs to the mobile chip despite its lower power envelope, and the PCIe lane advantage belongs to the desktop chip. The integrated graphics difference, Arc Xe-LPG 64EU versus Arc B390, suggests a different graphics architecture, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database.