Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two Intel Core Ultra Series 2 processors by platform and workload priority. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851, wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX, a mobile part on Intel BGA 2114, takes only 3 wins. For users prioritizing raw single-thread performance and most multi-threaded rendering workloads, the 250KF Plus is the stronger choice. The 255HX, with its lower 55 W TDP versus 125 W, serves a different purpose: it delivers competitive multi-core results in specific tests while operating in a mobile power envelope. The 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66159. The 255HX also sits at the 93rd percentile, with an average score of 62738, a gap of roughly 5.4% in average score. The desktop chip's launch MSRP is $184. The 255HX has no recorded launch MSRP. Pick the 250KF Plus for desktop builds demanding peak single-core and most multi-core tasks. Pick the 255HX for mobile systems where the integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU and lower TDP matter more than winning every benchmark.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same 3 nm TSMC process node, with identical transistor counts of 17,800 million and identical die sizes of 243 mm². Both use DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. The L1 cache is 192 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core, and L3 is 30 MB shared. Both support PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The core counts differ. The 250KF Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads, based on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename. The 255HX uses 20 cores and 20 threads, based on the Arrow Lake-HX codename with the Arrow Lake architecture. Neither chip uses simultaneous multithreading, hence core counts equal thread counts. The 250KF Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The 255HX has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The desktop part runs at a much higher base frequency, 1.80 GHz higher, which explains much of its single-core advantage. The 255HX compensates with two additional cores. The 250KF Plus supports ECC memory; the 255HX does not. The 255HX integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU; the 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics. Both have unlocked multipliers. The 250KF Plus is a desktop part with a 125 W TDP, while the 255HX is a mobile part with a 55 W TDP. The 250KF Plus launched in March 2026, while the 255HX launched in January 2025. The 250KF Plus uses the part number SA4V3, and the 255HX uses SRVFG. Both are active production parts.

Where Each One Wins

The 250KF Plus dominates nearly every category. Its most decisive victory comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 6030 against 2163, a 178.8% advantage. That margin reflects the desktop chip's 5.30 GHz boost clock versus 5.20 GHz on the mobile chip, combined with the 250KF Plus's 4.20 GHz base clock. The 250KF Plus also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 42718 versus 32612, a 31% lead. It wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by a smaller 4.4% margin, scoring 17941 versus 17187. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 255HX takes the win with 4916 versus 4305, a 12.4% advantage. That is one of only three wins for the mobile chip. The 255HX also wins PassMark floating point math with 160624 versus 159824, a slim 0.5% edge, and PassMark integer math with 127126 versus 123030, a 3.2% margin. All other tests favor the 250KF Plus. In PassMark single-thread, the desktop chip scores 4698 versus 4562, a 3% lead. In PassMark multi-thread, it scores 50146 versus 48234, a 4% lead. The 250KF Plus wins data compression (553155 vs 515143, 7.4%), data encryption (41292 vs 39499, 4.5%), extended instructions (42880 vs 41247, 4%), prime numbers (452 vs 400, 13%), physics (3183 vs 2926, 8.8%), and random string sorting (67209 vs 62591, 7.4%). The 255HX's wins are concentrated in math-heavy PassMark workloads and one older Cinebench version.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the 255HX's 5.20 GHz boost clock.

Q: Does the 255HX include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the 255HX integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory. The 255HX does not.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66159, while the 255HX averages 62738. That is a difference of 2421 points in favor of the desktop chip.

Q: How many benchmarks does each chip win?

A: The 250KF Plus wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The 255HX wins 3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the database is Cinebench R23 single-core. The 250KF Plus scores 6030, and the 255HX scores 2163. The delta of 178.8% is the largest margin in either direction across all recorded tests. That is not a minor gap; it is a fundamental difference in per-core capability. The desktop chip's 4.20 GHz base clock and 5.30 GHz boost clock, combined with its Arrow Lake Refresh design, produce a single-core result that nearly triples the mobile part's output. Cinebench R15 single-core tells a similar story, with 607 versus 327, a 85.6% lead for the 250KF Plus. These single-core numbers matter for lightly threaded applications.

In multi-core workloads, the picture is more varied. The 250KF Plus wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 42718 versus 32612, a 31% margin. That is a substantial lead, especially considering the 255HX has two more cores. The 250KF Plus also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core with 17941 versus 17187, a 4.4% margin. However, in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 255HX takes the win with 4916 versus 4305, a 12.4% advantage. This suggests the older R15 version favors the mobile chip's core count and thread scheduling, while newer versions of Cinebench respond better to the desktop chip's higher clocks and architecture. The 255HX's other wins are in PassMark floating point math and integer math. Floating point math shows 160624 versus 159824, a 0.5% edge for the 255HX. Integer math shows 127126 versus 123030, a 3.2% edge. These are close results, indicating the 255HX's two extra cores provide a measurable advantage in pure arithmetic throughput.

The PassMark suite otherwise favors the 250KF Plus. In PassMark multi-thread, the desktop chip scores 50146 versus 48234, a 4% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 4698 versus 4562, a 3% lead. Data compression shows 553155 versus 515143, a 7.4% lead. Data encryption shows 41292 versus 39499, a 4.5% lead. Extended instructions show 42880 versus 41247, a 4% lead. Prime number finding shows 452 versus 400, a 13% lead. Physics shows 3183 versus 2926, a 8.8% lead. Random string sorting shows 67209 versus 62591, a 7.4% lead. Across 17 tests, the 250KF Plus wins 14, including all three single-thread tests, all three Cinebench R20 and R23 tests, and 8 of the 10 PassMark tests. The 255HX wins only the older Cinebench R15 multi-core and the two PassMark math tests. The data confirms that the 250KF Plus is the superior performer for almost all workloads, while the 255HX's advantages are narrow and confined to specific arithmetic operations and one legacy benchmark version.