Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark record shows a lopsided contest. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H takes only 3. The magnitude of those wins, however, tells a more nuanced story.

The desktop part's largest advantage appears in PassMark random string sorting, where it scores 69,090 against 44,648, a 54.7% delta. Data compression shows a 47.1% edge (568,721 vs. 386,591), data encryption runs 41.2% ahead (42,144 vs. 29,840), and extended instructions land at 42.3% (44,565 vs. 31,315). Floating point math delivers a 42.1% gap (162,692 vs. 114,500), while integer math sits at 35.1% (125,091 vs. 92,603). Find prime numbers completes with 36.1% more throughput (486 vs. 357).

Cinebench multi-core results are similarly one-sided. R15 multi-core shows 4,640 vs. 3,281, a 41.4% lead. R20 multi-core lands at 18,442 vs. 13,672, a 34.9% gap. PassMark multithread follows at 51,596 vs. 38,298, a 34.7% delta. Physics, however, is nearly a tie: 3,494 vs. 3,404, only 2.6% apart, the closest contest in the entire dataset.

Single-thread performance flips the script. The Ultra X9 378H wins Cinebench R23 single-core decisively, scoring 4,595 against 2,261, a 50.8% advantage. It also takes R15 single-core at 462 vs. 328, a 29% gap. Yet the 250K Plus reclaims PassMark single-thread at 4,757 vs. 4,453, a 6.8% margin. The R20 single-core result belongs to the desktop chip: 2,603 vs. 1,929, also a 34.9% delta.

The most striking anomaly is Cinebench R23 multi-core. Here the mobile chip leads: 32,553 vs. 30,867, a 5.2% margin. This contradicts the R15 and R20 multi-core results, where the desktop part leads by 41.4% and 34.9% respectively. The data indicates workload-specific scaling behavior that does not translate uniformly across Cinebench versions.

The Verdict

The data points to distinct usage profiles. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus dominates throughput-heavy workloads: compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number search, floating point, integer math, and multithreaded PassMark tests all show leads between 34.7% and 54.7%. The average benchmark score for the 250K Plus is 66,855, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival in the database is the AMD EPYC 4465P, with an average score of 66,925, a delta of -0.1%.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H, by contrast, posts an average score of 47,468, placing it in the 89th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 at 47,527, a delta of -0.1%. The mobile chip's wins come specifically in Cinebench R23 multi-core and both R15 and R23 single-core tests. The R23 single-core result (4,595 vs. 2,261) is the largest single margin in either direction across the entire comparison.

For users prioritizing sustained parallel workloads, the 250K Plus is the clear choice from the recorded data. Its 18 cores and 18 threads provide a 2-core advantage over the X9 378H's 16 cores and 16 threads. For workloads that favor the latest Cinebench R23 single-core path, the X9 378H shows a substantial edge. The PassMark single-thread result, however, contradicts that, giving the desktop chip a 6.8% lead. The database shows no clear single-thread winner across all tests; the winner depends on which benchmark is trusted.

The X9 378H also posts a significantly lower TDP of 25 watts against the 250K Plus's 125 watts. The mobile part delivers its Cinebench R23 multi-core win at one-fifth the power envelope, though the desktop chip still leads most other multi-threaded tests. Users constrained by power or thermals will find the X9 378H competitive in specific Cinebench workloads, while users seeking maximum raw throughput across the broader PassMark suite should favor the 250K Plus.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh, on the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation. The Core Ultra X9 378H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, codenamed Panther Lake, on the Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) generation.

Both parts use a 3 nm process node, but they come from different foundries. The 250K Plus is fabricated by TSMC, while the X9 378H is fabricated by Intel. The desktop chip carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The mobile chip's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Cache layouts differ. Both parts list 192 KB of L1 per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 250K Plus, versus 2.5 MB per core on the X9 378H. Shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the desktop part, versus 18 MB on the mobile part. Neither chip features 3D V-Cache.

The integrated graphics differ. The 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The X9 378H uses Arc B390. Both are integrated solutions, but the database does not record comparative graphics performance.

Memory support diverges. The desktop chip supports DDR5 memory, while the mobile chip supports LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The recorded memory bandwidth is higher on the mobile chip: 153.6 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the 250K Plus but not on the X9 378H.

PCIe lanes show a major difference. The 250K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes. The X9 378H provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU-only lanes. This reflects the desktop part's expansion capability versus the mobile part's constrained interconnect.

The production status for both is Active. The 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier; the X9 378H does not. The desktop part's part number is recorded as SA4UZ, while the mobile part's part number is unknown.

Specification Differences

The processors differ in core count: 18 cores and 18 threads on the 250K Plus, versus 16 cores and 16 threads on the X9 378H. Base clocks are 4.20 GHz and 2.00 GHz respectively. Boost clocks are 5.30 GHz and 5.00 GHz. TDP is 125 watts versus 25 watts.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop part, Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile part. Market segments are Desktop and Mobile respectively. Release dates differ: the 250K Plus was released on 2026-03-10, the X9 378H on 2026-04-03.

The 250K Plus has a recorded launch MSRP of $199. The X9 378H has no recorded launch MSRP. The desktop part supports ECC memory; the mobile part does not. L2 cache per core is 3 MB versus 2.5 MB. L3 cache is 30 MB versus 18 MB. Memory bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s, a rare case where the mobile chip has the higher specification.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 14 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins 3.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The largest gap is the X9 378H's 50.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core (4,595 vs. 2,261). The largest gap in the other direction is the 250K Plus's 54.7% lead in PassMark random string sorting (69,090 vs. 44,648).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,855, placing it in the 93rd percentile. The X9 378H has an average score of 47,468, placing it in the 89th percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The 250K Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The X9 378H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: Do the two processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The 250K Plus supports DDR5 memory, while the X9 378H supports LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel buses, but the X9 378H has a higher recorded memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The 250K Plus has 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The X9 378H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 250K Plus also has 3 MB of L2 per core versus 2.5 MB on the X9 378H.