Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a curious inversion: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, despite carrying a lower-tier name, wins 13 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The victories are not marginal either. In PassMark data compression, the Ultra 5 leads by 9.1%, scoring 553,155 against 507,018. Extended instruction workloads show a 9.3% gap, with 42,880 versus 39,235. Even prime number finding, a test that often favors higher core counts, goes to the Ultra 5 by 8.7% (452 to 416). Random string sorting adds another 7.6% win (67,209 to 62,439). These are substantial differences for two CPUs from the same family.

The Cinebench results tell a tighter story. Across R15, R20, and R23, the Ultra 5 leads by 1.7% to 1.8% in both single-core and multi-core runs. The multi-core scores are 4,305 versus 4,231 in R15, 17,941 versus 17,631 in R20, and 42,718 versus 41,980 in R23. Single-core deltas are similarly slim: 607 versus 597 in R15, 2,532 versus 2,488 in R20, and 6,030 versus 5,926 in R23. The consistency of these margins suggests a clock advantage rather than a fundamental architectural edge.

Where does the Ultra 7 265F strike back? The PassMark floating point math test shows a decisive 8.1% win (173,855 to 159,824). Integer math goes even further, with the Ultra 7 ahead by 10.9% (138,078 to 123,030). The single-thread PassMark score also favors the Ultra 7, though narrowly, at 4,750 versus 4,698, a 1.1% edge. Those 4 wins out of 17 are concentrated in raw arithmetic throughput, which hints at a different core configuration doing the heavy lifting.

The average benchmark scores in the database reflect this split. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus posts an average score of 66,159, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PQE (average 66,099, just 0.1% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65,914, 0.4% behind). The Ultra 7 265F averages 64,438, also in the 93rd percentile, but its rival set is different: it trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 by 0.3% (64,640) and beats the AMD EPYC 7343 by 0.4% (64,202). The 1,721-point gap in average scores between the two comparison CPUs is significant, but the Ultra 7’s wins in math-heavy tests complicate any simple ranking.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the 3 nm TSMC node, and both use the Intel Socket 1851. The transistor count is identical at 17,800 million, and the die size matches at 243 mm². The cache hierarchy is also the same on paper: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Neither chip has a v-cache variant. So the silicon foundation is essentially shared, which makes the benchmark divergences all the more interesting.

The core counts differ, and this is where the story turns. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. Neither uses simultaneous multithreading, so threads equal cores in both cases. The Ultra 7’s two extra cores should, in theory, provide more parallel throughput. Yet the data shows the Ultra 5 winning most multi-core tests. This suggests that the Ultra 5’s higher base clock of 4.20 GHz, versus the Ultra 7’s 2.40 GHz, is doing more work per core in many scenarios. The boost clocks are tied at 5.30 GHz, so peak single-core speed is identical.

The codenames differ subtly. The Ultra 5 is listed as "Arrow Lake Refresh" while the Ultra 7 is "Arrow Lake-S". The Ultra 7’s generation field explicitly says "Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake)" while the Ultra 5’s generation field says "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)". The Ultra 7 also carries the architecture label "Arrow Lake" directly, whereas the Ultra 5 leaves the architecture field null. These could be naming artifacts, but the refresh designation on the Ultra 5 hints at a later tuning pass.

Memory bandwidth is another divergence. The Ultra 5 supports 115.2 GB/s, while the Ultra 7 supports 102.4 GB/s. Both are dual-channel DDR5, but the Ultra 5’s higher figure may contribute to its wins in data compression and sorting, which are often memory-latency sensitive. ECC memory support also differs: the Ultra 5 supports ECC, the Ultra 7 does not. Both use PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, and neither has integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data does not support a simple "higher number means better" conclusion. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, including all six Cinebench tests and the PassMark multi-thread score (50,146 versus 49,410, a 1.5% margin). Its average benchmark score is 66,159 versus 64,438 for the Ultra 7. The Ultra 5 also has a higher base clock, higher memory bandwidth, ECC support, and an unlocked multiplier. It launched at $184 MSRP. For workloads that resemble Cinebench rendering or general productivity suites, the Ultra 5 is the clear choice from the recorded data.

The Ultra 7 265F is not without merit. Its floating point math score of 173,855 beats the Ultra 5 by 8.1%, and its integer math score of 138,078 beats it by 10.9%. Those are large margins in arithmetic-heavy tasks. The Ultra 7 also has a slightly higher PassMark single-thread score (4,750 versus 4,698). It consumes less power on paper, with a TDP of 65 watts versus 125 watts, and it launched at $379 MSRP. For users whose workloads are dominated by pure math operations, the Ultra 7’s extra cores and lower thermal envelope could be decisive.

The closest rivals in the database put both chips in similar company. The Ultra 5’s nearest rival, the Intel Core 9 273PQE, is only 0.1% away in average score, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is 0.4% behind. The Ultra 7’s nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, is 0.3% ahead. Neither chip is an outlier in its class; they are both competitive mid-pack performers. The verdict depends entirely on workload profile. The Ultra 5 is the general-purpose winner; the Ultra 7 is the specialist for math-heavy floating point and integer tasks.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on several recorded fields. The core count is 18 for the Ultra 5 versus 20 for the Ultra 7. Threads match cores at 18 and 20 respectively. Base clock is 4.20 GHz for the Ultra 5, 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7; boost clock is identical at 5.30 GHz. TDP is 125 watts for the Ultra 5, 65 watts for the Ultra 7. Memory bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 5, 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7. ECC memory support is true for the Ultra 5, false for the Ultra 7. The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra 5, locked on the Ultra 7. The codename differs: "Arrow Lake Refresh" versus "Arrow Lake-S". The release date is later for the Ultra 5 (March 2026) versus January 2025 for the Ultra 7. The launch MSRP is $184 for the Ultra 5, $379 for the Ultra 7. The part numbers are SA4V3 and SRQCV respectively. The architecture field is null for the Ultra 5, "Arrow Lake" for the Ultra 7. All other fields, including cache sizes, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, memory type, memory bus, PCIe lanes, and integrated graphics, are identical.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Why does the Core Ultra 5 win most Cinebench tests despite fewer cores?

A: The Ultra 5 has a base clock of 4.20 GHz versus 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7. Both share a 5.30 GHz boost clock. The higher base clock likely drives the 1.7% to 1.8% leads across R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests.

Q: In which tests does the Core Ultra 7 265F outperform the Core Ultra 5?

A: The Ultra 7 wins PassMark floating point math by 8.1% (173,855 to 159,824), integer math by 10.9% (138,078 to 123,030), and the single-thread PassMark test by 1.1% (4,750 to 4,698). It also wins the duplicate passmark_singlethread test by the same margin.

Q: Do the two CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory, but the Core Ultra 7 265F does not. Both support dual-channel DDR5 memory.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each CPU?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,159, while the Core Ultra 7 265F has an average score of 64,438. Both are in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Are both CPUs unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core Ultra 7 265F has a locked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates in Cinebench rendering workloads, winning all six recorded tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core) by margins of 1.7% to 1.8%. It also wins PassMark multi-thread (1.5% ahead), data compression (9.1% ahead), data encryption (4.6% ahead), extended instructions (9.3% ahead), prime number finding (8.7% ahead), random string sorting (7.6% ahead), and physics (0.3% ahead). This is a broad sweep across productivity, compression, and general compute tasks. The higher base clock, higher memory bandwidth, and ECC support make it the stronger all-rounder in the recorded data. Its unlocked multiplier also allows for manual tuning, a feature the Ultra 7 lacks.

The Core Ultra 7 265F wins specifically in PassMark floating point math and integer math, with substantial leads of 8.1% and 10.9% respectively. It also edges out the Ultra 5 in PassMark single-thread performance by 1.1%. These wins suggest its 20-core configuration excels at arithmetic-heavy parallel workloads where the extra cores can be fully utilized despite the lower base clock. The lower TDP of 65 watts versus 125 watts also makes it a more power-conscious choice for sustained math computations. For users running simulations, scientific calculations, or financial modeling that stress floating point and integer operations, the Ultra 7’s wins in those specific tests are the deciding factor. For everything else in the benchmark suite, the Ultra 5 is the data-backed pick.