Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H are both active 3 nm parts from Intel, but they target entirely different segments of the market. The 250KF Plus is a desktop processor with an unlocked multiplier, while the 338H is a mobile chip with integrated graphics. The benchmark data shows a complete sweep, with the desktop part winning all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, yet the nature of those wins varies significantly by workload, revealing distinct architectural priorities.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every single benchmark in the database, but the margin of victory tells the story. The largest advantages appear in heavily threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 250KF Plus scores 42,718 against 16,331 for the 338H, a staggering 161.6% delta. Similarly, PassMark data compression shows a 100% delta, with scores of 553,155 versus 276,539. These results indicate the desktop part is designed for sustained, high-throughput compute.

The 338H, while losing every test, shows its competitive footing in specific areas. Its closest margin is in PassMark physics, where it trails by just 18% (3,183 versus 2,697). The single-threaded PassMark test also shows a relatively narrow gap of 12.4%, with scores of 4,698 against 4,180. These results suggest the mobile chip retains competitive per-core efficiency, even if its overall throughput is far lower. The 338H also delivers a much higher memory bandwidth rating at 136.5 GB/s compared to 115.2 GB/s for the desktop part, which may benefit certain memory-sensitive tasks despite the overall compute deficit.

The data indicates the 250KF Plus is the clear choice for content creation, rendering, and any workload that scales with core count. The 338H, with its integrated Arc B370 graphics and 25 W TDP, is positioned for mobility and power-constrained environments where the desktop part cannot operate.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and codenames. The 250KF Plus is based on Arrow Lake Refresh, part of Core Ultra Series 2, while the 338H uses Panther Lake, part of Core Ultra Series 3. Both use a 3 nm process, but the foundry differs: TSMC produces the desktop chip, while Intel produces the mobile chip.

Core configuration is a major divergence. The 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Neither part uses hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts. Cache hierarchies also differ. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core, but the L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the desktop part versus 2.5 MB per core on the mobile part. The L3 cache is 30 MB shared on the 250KF Plus versus 18 MB shared on the 338H.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The desktop chip uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, while the mobile chip uses LPDDR5X, also dual-channel. The mobile part has a higher rated memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the desktop processor but not on the mobile one. PCIe lanes also differ significantly: the 250KF Plus offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 338H offers Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics is a defining difference. The 338H includes an Arc B370 iGPU, while the 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics at all. The desktop processor has an unlocked multiplier and a 125 W TDP, while the mobile chip is locked and rated at 25 W. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop part versus Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The 250KF Plus scores 6,030 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 195% higher than the 338H's score of 2,044.

Q: Does the mobile processor include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H includes an Arc B370 integrated GPU. The 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125 W, while the 338H has a TDP of 25 W.

Q: Are these processors from the same generation?

A: No, the 250KF Plus is from Core Ultra Series 2 (Arrow Lake Refresh), while the 338H is from Core Ultra Series 3 (Panther Lake).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The 250KF Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads, versus 12 cores and 12 threads on the 338H. Base clocks are 4.20 GHz for the desktop part and 1.90 GHz for the mobile part. Boost clocks are 5.30 GHz and 4.70 GHz, respectively. TDP is 125 W versus 25 W. The desktop part uses Intel Socket 1851, while the mobile part uses Intel BGA 2540.

Cache configurations diverge: L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 250KF Plus versus 2.5 MB per core on the 338H, and L3 cache is 30 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 on the desktop part versus LPDDR5X on the mobile part. Memory bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the desktop part. PCIe lanes are 20 (Gen 5) on the desktop part versus 4 (Gen 5) on the mobile part. Integrated graphics is absent on the 250KF Plus but present as Arc B370 on the 338H. The desktop part has an unlocked multiplier, the mobile part does not. The desktop part has a launch MSRP of $184; the mobile part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the most dramatic differences. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 250KF Plus scores 4,305 versus 2,504, a 71.9% delta. The single-core R15 test shows a 99% delta, with scores of 607 and 305. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 75.7% delta (17,941 versus 10,213), and R20 single-core shows the same 75.7% delta (2,532 versus 1,441). The largest gap in the entire database appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 250KF Plus leads by 195%, scoring 6,030 against 2,044. R23 multi-core follows with a 161.6% delta, scoring 42,718 versus 16,331.

PassMark tests reveal consistent advantages across different compute types. Data compression shows a 100% delta, with scores of 553,155 versus 276,539. Data encryption shows a 93.3% delta (41,292 versus 21,367). Extended instructions show a 79.4% delta (42,880 versus 23,906). Floating point math shows a 90.1% delta (159,824 versus 84,067). Integer math shows an 89.5% delta (123,030 versus 64,934). Multithreaded performance shows a 74.6% delta (50,146 versus 28,717). Random string sorting shows a 97.2% delta (67,209 versus 34,082). Find prime numbers shows a 48.7% delta (452 versus 304).

The narrowest margins appear in the remaining tests. PassMark physics shows the smallest gap at 18%, with scores of 3,183 versus 2,697. PassMark single-thread (and the duplicate singlethread entry) shows a 12.4% delta, with scores of 4,698 versus 4,180. These results indicate that while the 250KF Plus dominates in absolute terms, the 338H maintains respectable per-core performance relative to its much lower power envelope and mobile positioning. The average benchmark score for the 250KF Plus is 66,159, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the 338H averages 33,989, placing it in the 84th percentile. The nearest rival to the desktop part is the Intel Core 9 273PQE with an average score of 66,099, a 0.1% delta, while the nearest rival to the mobile part is the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H with an average score of 34,083, a -0.3% delta.