Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V are both members of Intel's Core Ultra Series 2 family, yet they serve fundamentally different purposes. The 250KF Plus is a desktop processor built for maximum throughput, while the 288V is a mobile chip designed for efficiency. The benchmark data confirms a complete sweep: the 250KF Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, though the margin of victory varies enormously depending on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every benchmark category in the database. Its victories range from a modest 9.9% lead in single-thread performance to a dominant 319.7% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The 250KF Plus is the clear choice for any workload that scales with core count, thread count, or sustained power delivery. Its 18 cores and 18 threads, combined with a 125W TDP, allow it to dominate multi-threaded rendering, data compression, and encryption tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has no benchmark wins in this comparison. However, its strengths lie outside the raw performance metrics recorded here. As a mobile processor with a 30W TDP, it is designed for battery-powered systems. Its integrated Arc 140V graphics provide a display output capability that the 250KF Plus lacks entirely, as the desktop chip has no integrated graphics. The 288V also uses LPDDR5X memory, which is optimized for low power consumption in compact laptops.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is substantially faster. It scores 42,718 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 10,178 for the 288V, a 319.7% advantage. PassMark multithread scores show 50,146 versus 19,810, a 153.1% lead.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The 250KF Plus leads in every single-thread test, but the margin is smaller than in multi-thread tests. In PassMark single-thread, the 250KF Plus scores 4,698 versus 4,274 for the 288V, a 9.9% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap widens to 209.2% with scores of 6,030 versus 1,950.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading, so core count equals thread count for both.

Q: What are the power requirements for each chip?

A: The 250KF Plus has a 125W TDP and is designed for desktop systems with a cooling solution capable of handling that thermal load. The 288V has a 30W TDP and is built for mobile platforms where power efficiency is critical.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The 250KF Plus supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The 288V supports LPDDR5X memory with dual-channel configuration and a higher bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, despite being a lower-power chip.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the 288V has integrated graphics, specifically the Arc 140V. The 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics unit, so a discrete GPU is required for any visual output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals the starkest contrast between the two processors. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 250KF Plus scores 42,718 against 10,178 for the 288V, a 319.7% difference that represents the largest single margin in the entire comparison. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 153.8% lead with 17,941 versus 7,069, while Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 172% lead with 4,305 versus 1,583. These results indicate that the 250KF Plus scales exceptionally well with multi-threaded rendering workloads, likely due to its 18 cores versus 8 cores and its higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus 5.10 GHz.

Single-core Cinebench results are similarly lopsided, though less extreme. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the 250KF Plus scoring 6,030 versus 1,950, a 209.2% advantage. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,532 versus 997, a 154% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 607 versus 301.5, a 101.3% lead. The consistent pattern across all three Cinebench versions confirms that the desktop chip's higher base clock of 4.20 GHz versus 3.30 GHz translates directly into superior per-thread performance.

The PassMark suite provides a broader view of workload-specific strengths. Data compression shows the 250KF Plus scoring 553,155 versus 186,521, a 196.6% lead. Random string sorting shows a 197.1% advantage with 67,209 versus 22,622. Integer math scores 123,030 versus 44,019, a 179.5% lead, while floating-point math scores 159,824 versus 59,536, a 168.4% advantage. Extended instructions show 42,880 versus 15,613, a 174.6% lead. Data encryption shows 41,292 versus 14,141, a 192% advantage. Find prime numbers shows 452 versus 195, a 131.8% lead.

The closest competition appears in PassMark physics and single-thread tests. Physics shows the 250KF Plus at 3,183 versus 1,637, a 94.4% lead, which is the smallest percentage margin in the entire dataset. PassMark single-thread shows 4,698 versus 4,274, a 9.9% advantage for the 250KF Plus. This near-parity in single-thread performance suggests that the 288V's architecture is well-optimized for per-core efficiency, even though it cannot match the desktop chip's raw clock speed advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every physical and electrical specification. The 250KF Plus uses the Intel Socket 1851 and is a desktop part, while the 288V uses Intel BGA 2833 and is a mobile part. The 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 4.20 GHz for the 250KF Plus and 3.30 GHz for the 288V, with boost clocks of 5.30 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively.

Power consumption differs dramatically: the 250KF Plus has a 125W TDP, while the 288V has a 30W TDP. The 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the 288V does not. Memory support diverges as well, with the 250KF Plus using DDR5 and the 288V using LPDDR5X. The 288V offers higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s for the 250KF Plus. ECC memory support is present only on the 250KF Plus.

PCIe lane counts differ substantially. The 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the 288V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. The 288V includes the integrated Arc 140V graphics, while the 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics. The 250KF Plus has a launch MSRP of $184, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the 288V.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on TSMC's 3 nm process node and share the Core Ultra Series 2 branding, but their architectures diverge from there. The 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and is classified in the Ultra 5 generation. The 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and is classified in the Ultra 9 generation. The 250KF Plus has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while these figures are not recorded for the 288V.

Cache configurations differ significantly. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 250KF Plus versus 2.5 MB per core on the 288V. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the 250KF Plus versus 12 MB on the 288V. The 250KF Plus has nearly 2.5 times the L3 cache of the 288V, which contributes to its large multi-threaded performance advantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

The 250KF Plus was released on 2026-03-10, while the 288V was released on 2024-09-23. The 250KF Plus has the part number SA4V3, while the 288V has part number SRPMSSRPMWQ5JTQ5JUQ5KW. The 288V's part number string is considerably longer, likely reflecting additional mobile-specific configuration data.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V in every recorded test. The desktop chip's 18 cores, higher clock speeds, and larger cache give it overwhelming advantages in multi-threaded workloads, with leads of 319.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 196.6% in data compression. Even in single-thread performance, where the gap narrows to 9.9% in PassMark, the 250KF Plus still holds the lead.

The 288V is not without its merits, but those merits do not appear in the benchmark comparisons. Its 30W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life takes priority over raw performance. Its integrated Arc 140V graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic computing tasks. Its LPDDR5X memory support provides higher bandwidth at lower power consumption. These characteristics are valuable in a mobile context, but they do not translate to benchmark wins against a desktop processor with more than twice the core count.

For a desktop builder seeking maximum compute performance, the data clearly points to the 250KF Plus. Its average benchmark score of 66,159 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, and it sits within 1% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the AMD EPYC 4465P in the nearest rival comparison. The 288V, with an average benchmark score of 23,219, ranks in the 76th percentile and competes with the Intel Core i9-11900F and AMD Ryzen 7 5800H. These are entirely different performance classes. The choice between them depends solely on whether the target platform is a desktop workstation or a mobile ultrabook.