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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX manages only two wins, both in PassMark math workloads. The margin of victory for the desktop part is consistent across most tests, landing in the 4.5% to 8.1% range, with one notable outlier in prime number calculation.

In the Cinebench suite, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by a uniform 5.1% across all three multicore tests. Its R15 multicore score of 4305 against 4096 for the 265HX represents a 5.1% advantage, and the R20 result repeats the exact same delta: 17941 versus 17069. The R23 multicore comparison follows suit at 42718 versus 40642. Single-core Cinebench results are nearly identical in proportion, with the 250KF Plus scoring 607 in R15 single-core versus 578, a 5% edge, and 6030 in R23 single-core versus 5737, again a 5.1% margin.

The PassMark workloads tell a slightly more varied story. Data compression shows the largest gap after prime numbers: the 250KF Plus scores 553155 versus 511817, an 8.1% lead. Random string sorting also favors the desktop chip by 7.6%, at 67209 versus 62458. Physics simulation shows a 6.9% advantage (3183 versus 2978), and extended instructions come in at 5.3% (42880 versus 40741). Data encryption is closer at 4.6% (41292 versus 39472). The multithread score favors the 250KF Plus by 4.5% (50146 versus 47985), while the single-thread score shows a 4.4% edge (4698 versus 4500).

The two wins for the Core Ultra 7 265HX are narrow. In floating-point math, it scores 161605 against 159824, a 1.1% margin. In integer math, the margin is slightly larger at 3.1%, with a score of 126954 versus 123030. These results indicate that the mobile part has a modest advantage in raw arithmetic throughput, but it is not enough to offset the losses elsewhere.

The largest single delta in the entire comparison is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the 250KF Plus scores 452 versus 406, an 11.3% advantage. This is the only test where the desktop part exceeds an 8.1% margin.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, both processors sit at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66159, placing it within 0.1% of the Intel Core 9 273PQE (66099) and 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914). It trails the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus by 1% (66855) and the AMD EPYC 4465P by 1.1% (66925). The 265HX, with an average score of 63173, is effectively tied with the Intel Core i7-13790F (63080, 0.1% delta) and sits 0.5% above the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (62839). It also edges out the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX by 0.7% (62738), while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G comes in 0.2% higher at 63331.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the stronger choice for nearly every workload category captured in the database. Its wins span Cinebench rendering, data compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, prime number calculation, physics simulation, random string sorting, multithreaded tasks, and single-threaded tasks. The consistent 5% margins across the Cinebench suite suggest that the desktop part delivers a broad generational uplift in both lightly threaded and fully threaded rendering workloads.

The two workloads where the Core Ultra 7 265HX wins, floating-point math and integer math, point to a specific strength in arithmetic-heavy compute. Its floating-point score of 161605 is 1.1% higher, and its integer score of 126954 is 3.1% higher. These are the kinds of operations that appear in scientific computing, financial modeling, and certain simulation codes. However, the margins are small, and the 265HX does not translate this arithmetic advantage into wins in physics simulation or extended instructions, where it trails by 6.9% and 5.3% respectively.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload profile. The 250KF Plus is the superior part for rendering, compression, encryption, and general productivity. The 265HX only justifies consideration when floating-point or integer arithmetic throughput is the dominant requirement, and even then the advantage is slim enough to be within run-to-run variance. The 250KF Plus also holds the edge in single-threaded performance, which matters for legacy software and lightly threaded applications.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from Intel's Core Ultra Series 2 and share the same 3 nm process node from TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 17,800 million, and both use a die size of 243 mm². The cache hierarchy is also the same: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

The core configurations differ. The 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, also without hyperthreading. Despite having two fewer cores, the desktop part posts higher multicore scores across every Cinebench test. This suggests that the 250KF Plus core arrangement, built on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, achieves higher effective throughput per core than the Arrow Lake-HX mobile design. The base clock differs substantially: 4.20 GHz for the 250KF Plus versus 2.60 GHz for the 265HX. The boost clock is identical at 5.30 GHz for both.

The power envelope is a major differentiator. The 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125, while the 265HX operates at 55. The higher base clock and desktop power budget explain part of the performance gap. The 265HX compensates with more physical cores, but the data shows that the 250KF Plus's clock advantage outweighs the two-core deficit in most workloads.

Memory support is another point of divergence. Both support DDR5 and dual-channel memory, but the 250KF Plus has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the 265HX. ECC memory support is present on the 250KF Plus but absent on the 265HX. The PCIe configuration is identical: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

The integrated graphics situation is completely different. The 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (marked N/A), while the 265HX includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. This is a meaningful distinction for buyers who need a display output without a discrete GPU.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851 and targets the desktop segment, while the 265HX uses Intel BGA 2114 and is a mobile part. Both have unlocked multipliers. The release dates differ: the 250KF Plus launched on 2026-03-10, while the 265HX launched on 2025-01-12. The part numbers are SA4V3 and SRVFH respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 versus 40642 for the 265HX, a 5.1% advantage.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 265HX win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins two PassMark workloads: floating-point math (161605 versus 159824, a 1.1% margin) and integer math (126954 versus 123030, a 3.1% margin).

Q: Do both processors have the same cache configuration?

A: Yes, both have 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the core count difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX does not.

Q: Is the integrated graphics present on both?

A: No, the 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, while the 265HX includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The base clock is 4.20 GHz for the desktop part versus 2.60 GHz for the mobile part. The boost clock is the same at 5.30 GHz. The TDP is 125 for the 250KF Plus versus 55 for the 265HX. The 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 265HX uses Intel BGA 2114. The codename is Arrow Lake Refresh for the former and Arrow Lake-HX for the latter. Memory bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s on the 250KF Plus versus 102.4 GB/s on the 265HX. ECC memory support is true for the 250KF Plus and false for the 265HX. The 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, while the 265HX includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The market segment is Desktop for the 250KF Plus and Mobile for the 265HX. The release date is 2026-03-10 for the 250KF Plus and 2025-01-12 for the 265HX. The launch MSRP for the 250KF Plus is $184. The 265HX has no recorded launch MSRP. The part numbers are SA4V3 and SRVFH respectively.