Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in this matchup, with the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus taking 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. However, the margins are not uniform, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus claims specific victories that matter for certain workloads.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all six tests by identical margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 4305 against 4224, a 1.9% lead. The single-core test shows 607 versus 596, also a 1.8% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 17941 versus 17603, and the single-core score is 2532 versus 2485, both again 1.9% ahead. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 42718 against 41913, while single-core lands at 6030 versus 5917, with the same 1.9% delta. These consistent margins indicate the Core Ultra 5 holds a steady per-core performance advantage across rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals a more lopsided set of results in the Core Ultra 5's favor. Data compression shows the largest gap: 553155 versus 493179, a 12.2% win. Random string sorting follows closely at 67209 versus 60020, a 12% difference. Data encryption delivers 41292 versus 37813, and extended instructions scores 42880 versus 39283, each with a 9.2% margin. The multithread test shows 50146 versus 48270, a 3.9% advantage. Integer math is nearly even at 123030 versus 122449, only 0.5% apart.

The Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus claims five wins, and they are concentrated in specific areas. The physics test shows its best result: 3843 versus 3183, a 17.2% advantage that represents the largest margin in either direction across all benchmarks. Prime number finding scores 482 versus 452, a 6.2% win. Floating point math delivers 163567 versus 159824, a 2.3% edge. The single-thread PassMark test records 4764 versus 4698, a 1.4% lead, though the Cinebench single-core tests contradict this by favoring the Core Ultra 5.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 family and share fundamental silicon traits. They use the same 3 nm process node from TSMC, with identical transistor counts of 17,800 million and the same die size of 243 mm². The cache hierarchy is also identical: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3.

The core configurations differ. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads. Neither uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts match core counts exactly. The Core Ultra 5 carries the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, while the Core Ultra 7 uses Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, reflecting their different market positions.

Clock speeds show a notable trade-off. The Core Ultra 5 has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boosts to 5.30 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 base clock is much lower at 2.40 GHz but matches the 5.30 GHz boost. This lower base clock partly explains why the Core Ultra 7 loses most multicore benchmarks despite having two additional cores, as the sustained clock under load favors the desktop part.

Power envelopes differ substantially. The Core Ultra 5 is rated at 125 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 7 draws only 55 W. This aligns with their sockets: the Core Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop systems, while the Core Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2114 for mobile platforms. The Core Ultra 5 is unlocked for multiplier adjustments, and the Core Ultra 7 is also listed as multiplier unlocked.

Memory support shows a small difference in bandwidth. Both use DDR5 with dual-channel buses, but the Core Ultra 5 achieves 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 7. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 5 but not on the Core Ultra 7. Both provide PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics separate the two clearly. The Core Ultra 5 lists N/A for graphics, meaning it requires a discrete GPU. The Core Ultra 7 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, making it viable for systems without a separate graphics card. The Core Ultra 5's "KF" designation indicates no integrated graphics, while the Core Ultra 7's "HX" mobile positioning includes them.

The release dates are close, with the Core Ultra 5 launching on 2026-03-10 and the Core Ultra 7 on 2026-03-16. Both are active production parts.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus as the stronger performer overall. Its average benchmark score of 66159 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, identical to the Core Ultra 7's percentile. The Core Ultra 7's average score is 61834, putting it roughly 7% behind in aggregate performance. The Core Ultra 5's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PQE at 66099 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 (0.4% behind), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855 (1% ahead). The Core Ultra 7 sits alongside the Intel Core i9-13900KF at 61841 (0% delta), the Intel Core i9-13900K at 61766 (0.1% ahead), and the Intel Core i9-13900T at 61723 (0.2% ahead).

For multi-threaded rendering, the Core Ultra 5 wins every Cinebench test, though by a narrow 1.9% margin. Its higher base clock and 125 W power budget allow it to sustain performance despite having fewer cores. The Core Ultra 7's 20 cores cannot overcome the clock disadvantage in these sustained workloads, as the data confirms across all three Cinebench versions.

For data-heavy tasks, the Core Ultra 5's lead expands dramatically. Compression, encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting all show advantages between 9.2% and 12.2%. These workloads benefit from the desktop part's higher sustained clocks and memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 also wins the multithread PassMark test by 3.9%.

The Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus wins in physics simulation, prime number finding, floating point math, and PassMark single-thread performance. The physics result is particularly strong at 17.2% ahead, suggesting the mobile chip handles certain algorithmic patterns better. However, these wins are fewer and more scattered across the test suite.

The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is $184. The Core Ultra 7 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Neither uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Do these processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size. They also share identical cache layouts: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3.

Q: Which chip wins more benchmarks in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus wins 5 tests, including physics simulation by a 17.2% margin, its largest victory.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125 W, while the Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus has a TDP of 55 W. The Core Ultra 5 uses the desktop socket Intel Socket 1851, whereas the Core Ultra 7 uses the mobile Intel BGA 2114 socket.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus includes integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus lists N/A for integrated graphics.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 has an average benchmark score of 66159, while the Core Ultra 7 scores 61834. Both rank in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, but the Core Ultra 5 holds roughly a 7% aggregate advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates in rendering and data manipulation. Every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, goes to this chip with a consistent 1.9% margin. The PassMark data compression test shows its biggest win at 12.2%, and random string sorting is close behind at 12%. Data encryption and extended instructions each deliver 9.2% advantages. The multithread test adds another 3.9% win, and integer math rounds out the victories with a narrow 0.5% edge. These results indicate the desktop chip excels at sustained multi-core workloads, particularly those involving large data sets, compression algorithms, and encryption routines. Its higher base clock of 4.20 GHz and memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s support this pattern.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus wins in physics simulation, prime number finding, floating point math, and PassMark single-thread performance. The physics test is its standout result at 17.2% ahead, the largest margin recorded in either direction. Prime number finding adds a 6.2% win, and floating point math contributes a 2.3% advantage. The PassMark single-thread score of 4764 versus 4698 gives it a 1.4% lead, though the Cinebench single-core tests favor the Core Ultra 5. These wins suggest the mobile chip handles specific algorithmic workloads, particularly physics calculations and prime number generation, more efficiently despite the lower base clock of 2.40 GHz. Its 55 W TDP also positions it for thermally constrained mobile systems where sustained clocks matter less than burst performance.

For users selecting between the two, the data supports the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus for desktop builds requiring maximum throughput in rendering, compression, and encryption. The Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus suits mobile platforms where the 55 W power envelope and integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics with 64 execution units provide a complete package without a discrete GPU. The Core Ultra 5's lack of integrated graphics means it demands a separate graphics card, while the Core Ultra 7 can operate standalone. Both parts achieve the 93rd percentile ranking, but the Core Ultra 5 delivers higher average performance at 66159 versus 61834, with the desktop chip winning 12 of 17 head-to-head tests.