Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus records an average benchmark score of 66159, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H averages 40967, which puts it in the 87th percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 127.9% ahead of the Ultra X7 358H's 18747. This is the largest multi-core delta recorded between the two parts.

Q: Does the Ultra X7 358H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Ultra X7 358H includes Arc B390 integrated graphics. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory. The Ultra X7 358H does not.

Q: What are the memory type differences between the two?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X memory with a higher bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, despite having fewer PCIe lanes.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Both are marked as Active in production status. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a launch MSRP of $184, while the Ultra X7 358H has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and designs. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, and uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Ultra X7 358H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, based on the Panther Lake architecture, and uses a 3 nm process from Intel's own foundry.

Core configurations differ meaningfully. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither part uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts. The desktop part runs at a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boosts to 5.30 GHz. The mobile part operates at 1.90 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, reflecting its power envelope.

Cache hierarchies share the same per-core sizing: 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache differs, with the Ultra 5 250KF Plus carrying 30 MB shared, while the Ultra X7 358H has 18 MB shared. Transistor counts and die sizes are only recorded for the desktop chip: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The mobile chip has no transistor count or die size listed.

Platform and feature sets diverge sharply. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, supports DDR5 memory, has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, includes ECC support, and has an unlocked multiplier. The Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540, supports LPDDR5X memory, provides only 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, lacks ECC support, and has a locked multiplier. The mobile chip includes Arc B390 integrated graphics, which the desktop chip completely omits. Power targets also separate them: the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125 W, the Ultra X7 358H consumes 25 W.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a one-sided competitive landscape. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins 17 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Ultra X7 358H wins none. But the nature of the wins varies, and that variance matters for use-case analysis.

The desktop part dominates in heavily threaded workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 127.9% advantage, and the PassMark multithread test shows a 48.4% lead. Data compression, extended instructions, floating-point math, and integer math all show the Ultra 5 250KF Plus ahead by margins between 48% and 66.5%. This processor is designed for sustained, high-throughput desktop work where the 125 W TDP and 18 cores can stretch out.

The mobile part's strength lies in its efficiency profile and platform integration. It operates at a 25 W TDP, making it suitable for compact systems where thermal headroom is limited. It also includes Arc B390 integrated graphics, so systems based on this chip do not require a discrete GPU for display output. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 153.6 GB/s, which benefits integrated-graphics workloads and memory-sensitive tasks despite the lower CPU core performance.

The closest benchmark margin is PassMark physics, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by only 5.4% (3183 versus 3021). This suggests that in certain physics simulations, the two processors perform nearly on par, and the mobile chip's architecture narrows the gap substantially. The single-thread PassMark result also shows a relatively modest 13.9% lead for the desktop part, indicating that the mobile chip is competitive in lightly threaded scenarios.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 18 | 16 |

| Threads | 18 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.30 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Arrow Lake Refresh | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not listed |

| L3 Cache | 30 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 4 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2026-03-10 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $184 | Not listed |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | SA4V3 | SA4RAQ9ET |

The L1 and L2 cache configurations are identical: 192 KB per core and 3 MB per core respectively. The process node is the same at 3 nm, though the foundries differ. Both processors use dual-channel memory buses.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest recorded win for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 6030 against 2080 for the Ultra X7 358H, a 189.9% advantage. This is an enormous single-thread gap, far larger than the PassMark single-thread margin of 13.9% (4698 versus 4124). The discrepancy between the two single-thread tests suggests that the Cinebench R23 workload is particularly favorable to the desktop chip's 5.30 GHz boost clock.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the same pattern at a slightly smaller scale. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus posts 42718, while the Ultra X7 358H manages 18747, a 127.9% lead. The older Cinebench versions tell a similar story: R20 multi-core shows a 49.4% advantage (17941 versus 12011), and R15 multi-core shows a 42.2% advantage (4305 versus 3027). The growing gap across R15, R20, and R23 likely reflects the newer test's heavier use of sustained multi-core throughput.

PassMark workloads show consistent but smaller wins. Data compression gives the desktop part a 66.5% edge (553155 versus 332508), and random string sorting shows a 66.5% lead as well (67209 versus 40357). Data encryption is 58.5% ahead (41292 versus 26046), extended instructions are 57.2% ahead (42880 versus 27274), and floating-point math is 53.9% ahead (159824 versus 103842). Integer math shows a 48% margin (123030 versus 83147), and the multithread test shows a 48.4% margin (50146 versus 33802).

The smallest margins reveal where the mobile chip is most competitive. PassMark physics shows only a 5.4% difference (3183 versus 3021), which is the closest result in the entire benchmark set. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 34.1% advantage for the desktop part (452 versus 337), a narrower margin than most other compute tests. These two results indicate that the Ultra X7 358H handles certain mathematical workloads with relative efficiency despite its lower clock speeds and TDP.

The nearest rival data provides context for each chip's standing. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits within 1% of the Intel Core 9 273PQE and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, and trails the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus by 1%. The Ultra X7 358H sits within 0.7% of several mobile competitors, including the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H. This places the desktop part in a higher absolute performance tier, while the mobile part competes in a denser, more tightly packed field. The 93rd percentile for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus versus the 87th percentile for the Ultra X7 358H reflects that positioning.