Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a comprehensive sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, winning all 17 benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H. The largest margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the desktop part scores 123030 against 62070, a delta of 98.2%. Data compression follows closely at 97.3% ahead, with 553155 versus 280340. Random string sorting shows a 95.4% advantage, and floating point math and data encryption each register a 93.9% lead.

The Cinebench suite reveals consistent multi-core and single-core gaps. In Cinebench R23, the 250KF Plus posts 42718 multi-core against 23991 for the 336H, a 78.1% difference. Single-core R23 results show 6030 versus 3387, a 78% gap. The R20 tests mirror this pattern: 17941 against 10076 multi-core and 2532 against 1422 single-core, both at 78.1%. Cinebench R15 shows 4305 versus 2418 multi-core and 607 versus 341 single-core, each at 78%.

The narrowest margins appear in the lighter workloads. PassMark single-thread shows 4698 against 4013, a 17.1% lead. Physics testing shows 3183 versus 2682, an 18.7% advantage. Prime number finding shows 452 versus 299, a 51.2% gap. Extended instructions show 42880 versus 24542, a 74.7% difference. PassMark multithread shows 50146 versus 28545, a 75.7% lead.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story: 66159 for the 250KF Plus against 34485 for the 336H. The desktop chip sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the mobile chip sits at the 84th percentile. The 250KF Plus also lands close to the Intel Core 9 273PQE, with a 0.1% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, with a 0.4% delta. The 336H, by contrast, trades blows with the Intel Core i7-13700HX at a 0.2% deficit and the Intel Core i5-13450HX at a 0.4% lead.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark distribution shows the 250KF Plus winning every recorded test, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantages rather than any reversal. The strongest wins, above 90%, come from integer math, data compression, floating point math, random string sorting, and data encryption. These are compute-heavy workloads that scale with core count and clock speed, areas where the 250KF Plus holds a clear structural edge.

The 336H shows its most competitive results in single-threaded and physics workloads, where the deltas shrink to 17.1% and 18.7% respectively. These tests rely less on raw core scaling and more on per-core efficiency, and the mobile part's smaller gap suggests its architecture handles lighter tasks with relatively less penalty. Still, the 250KF Plus wins these as well, just by a narrower margin.

For productivity tasks like Cinebench rendering, the 250KF Plus delivers roughly 78% higher scores across all three versions of the test. This indicates that the desktop chip's higher base and boost clocks, combined with its larger cache, translate directly into render performance. The 336H, with a 25W TDP, is engineered for mobility, so its lower scores reflect a power envelope that prioritizes efficiency over peak throughput.

The PassMark multithread test shows a 75.7% lead for the 250KF Plus, while the extended instructions test shows a 74.7% lead. These results suggest that the desktop part is better suited for parallel workloads and instruction-heavy applications. The 336H holds its own in the physics test at 2682, which is only 18.7% behind, indicating that its architecture handles that specific workload with relative competence.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The 250KF Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, while the 336H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, built on the Panther Lake architecture. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the 250KF Plus is fabricated by TSMC, whereas the 336H is fabricated by Intel.

Core counts differ: the 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither part uses hyper-threading. Base clocks show a substantial gap, with the 250KF Plus running at 4.20 GHz against 1.90 GHz for the 336H. Boost clocks also favor the desktop chip at 5.30 GHz versus 4.60 GHz.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. Both share a 192 KB L1 per core and a 3 MB L2 per core for the 250KF Plus, but the 336H has a 2.5 MB L2 per core. L3 cache totals 30 MB shared for the 250KF Plus versus 18 MB shared for the 336H. The desktop chip also carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the database does not list those figures for the mobile part.

Memory support differs as well. The 250KF Plus supports DDR5 only, while the 336H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the 250KF Plus but not on the 336H. PCIe lanes also differ: the 250KF Plus offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the 336H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes.

The 336H includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics. The desktop part uses an Intel Socket 1851 and has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking. The 336H uses Intel BGA 2540 and has a locked multiplier. The 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125W, while the 336H has a TDP of 25W. The desktop chip was released on March 10, 2026, while the mobile chip was released on January 4, 2026.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the superior performer across every benchmark recorded. Its 93rd percentile ranking versus the 84th percentile for the 336H, combined with a 17-win sweep, makes the performance hierarchy unambiguous. The desktop chip delivers at least a 17.1% advantage in every test, with most workloads exceeding 74% leads.

The 250KF Plus is the appropriate choice for desktops where power draw is not a constraint. Its 125W TDP, unlocked multiplier, and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes support high-throughput workloads such as rendering, data compression, and encryption. The 336H, with a 25W TDP and integrated graphics, fits mobile systems where battery life and heat dissipation take priority. Its 16 cores and 18 MB L3 cache still place it in the 84th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700HX and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, so it is competitive within its class.

The 250KF Plus also stands near the top of the broader CPU market. Its average benchmark score of 66159 places it within 0.1% of the Intel Core 9 273PQE and 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D. The 336H, by contrast, sits within 0.8% of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 and 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X. These comparisons show that the desktop chip competes with high-end desktop parts, while the mobile chip competes with mid-range laptop processors.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the 250KF Plus is the clear pick. For users prioritizing mobility and integrated graphics, the 336H is the only viable option of the two, given its BGA socket and lower power draw. The recorded data does not show any workload where the 336H outperforms the 250KF Plus, so the decision rests on platform constraints rather than performance trade-offs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the 250KF Plus scores 123030 against 62070, a 98.2% delta.

Q: Does the 336H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the 336H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the boost clocks for each processor?

A: The 250KF Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the 336H boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The 250KF Plus has 30 MB shared L3 cache, while the 336H has 18 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The 250KF Plus supports ECC memory, while the 336H does not.