Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Processor N150: a desktop flagship-class part against a low-power mobile chip. The benchmark data shows a complete mismatch in compute capability, with the Core Ultra 5 delivering massive leads across every recorded test. This analysis breaks down the measured differences and what they mean for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records four shared benchmark tests between these two processors, and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all four by a wide margin. The largest gap appears in multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 scores 30,867 against 2,590.5 for the N150, a delta of 1091.5%. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test tells a similar story, with the Core Ultra 5 scoring 4,640 versus 422.5, a 998.2% advantage. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 5 delivers roughly 11 to 12 times the multi-threaded rendering performance of the N150.

Single-core performance shows a smaller but still decisive gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 scores 2,261 versus 935 for the N150, a 141.8% lead. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows the Core Ultra 5 at 328 versus 153.15, a 114.2% advantage. The single-core deltas are far smaller than the multi-core ones, which suggests the N150's architecture is not as far behind on a per-thread basis, but the Core Ultra 5 still more than doubles its single-thread output in both tests.

The Core Ultra 5's average benchmark score of 66,855 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4465P, which scores 66,925 and trails by 0.1%, and the Intel Xeon 6515P at 67,006, trailing by 0.2%. The Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 67,469, which is 0.9% higher. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a close variant, scores 66,159, which is 1.1% lower. This positions the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in the upper tier of desktop processors, competitive with server-class chips in aggregate throughput.

The N150, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 1,025, placing it in the 28th percentile. Its nearest rivals are older or low-power parts: the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T scores 1,024 and is 0.1% higher, the Intel Core i3-4340 scores 1,026 and is 0.1% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U scores 1,024 and is 0.1% higher. The N150 sits in the company of decade-old desktop chips and entry-level mobile parts, which frames its performance class clearly.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the clear winner in every benchmark category recorded. Its strengths are most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads, where its 18 cores and 18 threads allow it to process parallel tasks at a scale the 4-core, 4-thread N150 cannot approach. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 30,867 versus 2,590.5 shows a 1091.5% lead, which means tasks like video rendering, 3D scene compilation, and software builds will complete in a fraction of the time on the Core Ultra 5.

For single-threaded tasks, the Core Ultra 5 still holds a commanding lead, but the margin narrows. Its 5.30 GHz boost clock versus the N150's 3.60 GHz boost clock, combined with the newer architecture, delivers a 141.8% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core. This matters for applications that rely on one or two threads, such as older games, spreadsheet recalculation, or lightweight scripting.

The N150 does not win any of the four recorded head-to-head tests. Its only advantages are qualitative: it consumes far less power (6 W TDP versus 125 W TDP), supports DDR4 and LPDDR5 memory in addition to DDR5, and uses a compact BGA socket for mobile designs. For workloads that require minimal power draw, passive cooling, or battery operation, the N150 is the only choice between these two, but in raw compute performance it trails across the board.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is built on Arrow Lake Refresh, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The die size is 243 mm² and contains 17,800 million transistors. It supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, and it includes ECC memory support. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The socket is Intel Socket 1851, and the multiplier is unlocked for overclocking.

The Intel Processor N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture, part of the Intel Processor series based on Alder Lake-N. It is manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The cache includes 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory, but only in single-channel configuration, with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported. The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730. The socket is Intel BGA 1264, and the multiplier is locked.

The process node difference is significant: 3 nm versus 10 nm means the Core Ultra 5 packs far more transistors into a larger die with much higher clock speeds and core counts. The N150's base clock of 0.10 GHz is unusually low, indicating a design that prioritizes power efficiency over sustained frequency. The Core Ultra 5's 125 W TDP allows it to maintain high clocks under load, while the N150's 6 W TDP limits it to modest performance.

Memory bandwidth also separates the two. The Core Ultra 5's dual-channel DDR5 at 115.2 GB/s provides roughly three times the bandwidth of the N150's single-channel 38.4 GB/s. This affects memory-intensive workloads such as large database operations, scientific simulations, and high-resolution video editing. PCIe support differs as well: the Core Ultra 5 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the N150 offers Gen 3 with 9 lanes, which limits expansion options and peripheral throughput on the mobile chip.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 30,867 against 2,590.5 for the N150, a 1091.5% lead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 4,640 against 422.5, a 998.2% lead.

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 5 in single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 leads by 141.8% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2,261 versus 935) and by 114.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core (328 versus 153.15).

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 Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Processor N150 does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 supports dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The N150 supports single-channel DDR4, DDR5, or LPDDR5 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are the processors overclockable?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Processor N150 has a locked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear separation: the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a high-performance desktop processor, while the Intel Processor N150 is a low-power mobile chip. For any workload measured in the database, the Core Ultra 5 is the superior choice. Multi-core rendering, single-thread responsiveness, and aggregate throughput all favor it by margins ranging from 114.2% to 1091.5%. Its 93rd percentile ranking and its proximity to server-class rivals like the AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Xeon 6515P confirm that it belongs in a performance desktop build.

The N150, with its 28th percentile ranking and average score of 1,025, sits near the bottom of the performance scale. It is competitive with the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and Intel Core i3-4340, parts from a different era. Its 6 W TDP and BGA socket make it suitable for fanless or battery-powered systems where power draw is the primary constraint, but the data shows no performance scenario where it wins against the Core Ultra 5.

The choice between these two is not a performance comparison. It is a form factor and power envelope decision. Builders who need desktop compute performance should pick the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Those who need a low-power embedded or mobile chip can use the N150, but they should expect roughly one-tenth the multi-core performance and less than half the single-core performance of the Core Ultra 5.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus | Intel Processor N150 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 18 | 4 |

| Threads | 18 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.30 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 6 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Codename | Arrow Lake Refresh | Twin Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 30 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2026-03-10 | 2024-11-19 |

| Launch MSRP | $199 | Not listed |