Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus across all 17 benchmark comparisons, with zero wins for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. The largest margins appear in data compression and random string sorting, where the desktop part leads by 68.9% and 68.8% respectively. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 553155 in PassMark data compression versus 327455 for the Ultra 7 366H, and 67209 versus 39814 in random string sorting.

Cinebench results show a consistent 50% advantage for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus in both multi-core and single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the desktop chip scores 42718 against 28477 for the mobile part. Single-core R23 shows 6030 versus 4020. The same 50% delta appears across R15 and R20 multi-core and single-core tests, indicating a uniform architectural performance gap rather than workload-specific behavior.

PassMark integer math favors the Ultra 5 250KF Plus by 47%, with scores of 123030 versus 83695. Floating point math shows a 54.2% lead (159824 versus 103615). Extended instructions produce a 59.4% advantage (42880 versus 26901), while data encryption shows a 59.8% gap (41292 versus 25845). Prime number finding is the narrowest PassMark margin at 38.7%, with scores of 452 versus 326.

The smallest overall delta appears in PassMark physics, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by only 10.5% (3183 versus 2880). Single-thread performance shows a 16.2% advantage for the desktop chip (4698 versus 4043), and multithread performance shows a 50% gap (50146 versus 33429). These results indicate that the Ultra 5 250KF Plus maintains a substantial lead even in lightly threaded workloads, though the physics test suggests some workloads narrow the gap considerably.

The average benchmark score reinforces this split: the Ultra 5 250KF Plus averages 66159 points across all tests, while the Ultra 7 366H averages 41263. This places the desktop chip in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 87th percentile for the mobile part.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the stronger processor in every measured workload. The desktop chip wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 10.5% in physics to 68.9% in data compression. The average score difference is substantial: 66159 versus 41263, a gap of roughly 60% based on the recorded averages.

The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus include the Intel Core 9 273PQE (average score 66099, delta 0.1%), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914, delta 0.4%), and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66855, delta -1%). This positions the 250KF Plus at the same performance tier as flagship desktop processors. The Ultra 7 366H, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41215, delta 0.1%) and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41208, delta 0.1%), placing it in a much lower performance bracket.

The market segments explain the gap. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop part with an 18-core, 18-thread configuration, a 4.20 GHz base clock, and 5.30 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 7 366H is a mobile processor with 16 cores and 16 threads, a 2.00 GHz base clock, and 4.80 GHz boost clock. The desktop chip also carries a 125 W TDP versus 25 W for the mobile part, which directly correlates with sustained performance capacity.

For users selecting between these two parts, the data supports the Ultra 5 250KF Plus for any workload where performance matters, provided the desktop form factor is acceptable. The mobile chip trades significant performance for portability and power efficiency, but the benchmark record shows no scenario where the Ultra 7 366H offers a performance advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The dataset shows no benchmark wins for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. Every recorded test favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, so the win distribution is strictly one-sided. The closest contest is PassMark physics, where the desktop chip leads by 10.5%. This test measures physical simulation workloads and may reflect the mobile chip's competitive showing in certain calculation patterns, but the desktop part still comes out ahead.

The largest wins for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus occur in data compression (68.9%), random string sorting (68.8%), data encryption (59.8%), and extended instructions (59.4%). These workloads benefit from the desktop chip's higher core count, larger cache hierarchy, and higher clock speeds. The 18-core configuration with 30 MB of shared L3 cache versus 16 cores and 18 MB of shared L3 cache gives the desktop part a structural advantage in parallel data manipulation tasks.

Cinebench results show a uniform 50% lead across all versions and thread counts. This consistency suggests the performance gap is rooted in fundamental clock and core advantages rather than microarchitecture-specific strengths. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz versus 4.80 GHz for the Ultra 7 366H, and the base clocks differ by more than double (4.20 GHz versus 2.00 GHz).

Single-thread performance favors the Ultra 5 250KF Plus by 16.2% in PassMark, which aligns with the clock speed advantage. The Cinebench single-core tests show a larger 50% gap, indicating that the desktop chip's per-core performance in rendering workloads is particularly strong. The mobile chip's lower power envelope likely constrains its ability to sustain peak clocks under load.

For the Ultra 7 366H, the relevant use case is mobile deployment where the desktop part cannot physically fit. The 25 W TDP, integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, and BGA 2540 socket make it suitable for laptops, but the benchmark data shows no performance scenario where it surpasses the desktop chip. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 7 366H include the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (delta 0.1%) and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (delta 0.1%), which represent comparable mobile performance tiers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither part uses hyperthreading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus records an average benchmark score of 66159, while the Ultra 7 366H records 41263. The desktop chip also sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs versus the 87th percentile for the mobile part.

Q: How does each processor compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core 9 273PQE, 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, and 1% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Ultra 7 366H is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, and 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speeds?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus runs at a 4.20 GHz base clock and 5.30 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 7 366H runs at a 2.00 GHz base clock and 4.80 GHz boost clock.

Q: What memory and PCIe support does each processor offer?

A: Both support dual-channel memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 and has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X and has 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Only the desktop chip supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the production status and release timeline?

A: Both processors are listed as Active production. The Ultra 7 366H has a release date of 2026-01-04, and the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a release date of 2026-03-10. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a launch MSRP of $184.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel series and use different foundries. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus belongs to Core Ultra Series 2 with the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process. The Ultra 7 366H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3 with the Panther Lake architecture and codename, fabricated by Intel on a 3 nm process. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Ultra 7 366H has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Core configurations differ substantially. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the desktop chip uses 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The mobile chip uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L2 allocation per core on the desktop part contributes to its data-heavy workload advantages.

The socket and market segment differences are fundamental. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851 and targets desktop systems. The Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540, a soldered mobile socket, and targets laptops. The desktop chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the mobile chip is locked. This makes the Ultra 5 250KF Plus suitable for overclocking, though the benchmark data does not include overclocked results.

Integrated graphics separate the two parts. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A), requiring a discrete GPU. The Ultra 7 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics, enabling display output without a separate graphics card. This is a significant practical difference for mobile systems where discrete GPUs are optional.

Power characteristics differ by a factor of five. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a 125 W TDP, while the Ultra 7 366H has a 25 W TDP. This explains the clock speed disparity and the sustained performance gap in multi-threaded tests. The mobile chip's power efficiency comes at a direct cost to compute throughput, as evidenced by the 50% Cinebench deltas.

Memory support shows additional divergence. Both support dual-channel memory with identical 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, but the Ultra 7 366H adds LPDDR5X support alongside DDR5. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 7 366H does not. PCIe lane counts differ as well: 20 Gen 5 lanes for the desktop chip versus 12 Gen 5 lanes for the mobile chip. The production status for both is Active, with the mobile chip releasing earlier in 2026.