Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every multi-threaded benchmark in the comparison. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 42,718 against 28,221 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, a 51.4% advantage. PassMark multithread results show 50,146 versus 32,956, a 52.2% lead.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads in single-core tests by 51.4% in Cinebench R15 (607 vs 401) and by 51.4% in R23 (6,030 vs 3,984). PassMark single-thread shows a smaller lead of 17.3% (4,698 vs 4,005).

Q: Where does the Core Ultra X7 368H come closest to the 250KF Plus?

A: The smallest delta is in PassMark physics, where the X7 368H trails by only 11.4% (2,857 vs 3,183). The next smallest gaps are PassMark single-thread at 17.3% and PassMark integer math at 39.7%.

Q: Which chip has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,159, while the Core Ultra X7 368H averages 40,518. The 250KF Plus sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs; the X7 368H sits in the 87th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor?

A: The 250KF Plus is within 0.1% of the Intel Core 9 273PQE (66,099) and 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65,914). The X7 368H is within 0.1% of the Intel Core 7 253PE (40,557) and 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40,431).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra X7 368H does not.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename. The Core Ultra X7 368H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, using the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake-H generation designation. Both use a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ: TSMC fabricates the 250KF Plus, while Intel fabricates the X7 368H.

The transistor count and die size are recorded only for the 250KF Plus at 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm². The X7 368H has no listed transistor count or die size. Cache hierarchies differ notably. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 250KF Plus versus 2.5 MB per core on the X7 368H. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the desktop part and 18 MB on the mobile part.

Core counts distinguish the two. The 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither uses simultaneous multithreading. The desktop chip has an unlocked multiplier; the mobile chip does not.

The 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, while the X7 368H includes an Arc B390 iGPU. The desktop part supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The mobile part supports LPDDR5X with dual-channel configuration and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity also differs: the 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the X7 368H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes.

The 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851 and is a desktop-market part. The X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540 and targets the mobile market. Both are listed as Active in production status. The release dates differ: the X7 368H launched earlier, on 2026-01-04, and the 250KF Plus followed on 2026-03-10.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. No benchmark in the database favors the Core Ultra X7 368H. The margin profile, however, separates workload categories.

The largest advantages for the 250KF Plus appear in memory and data-oriented tasks. PassMark data compression shows a 76.8% lead (553,155 vs 312,927), and PassMark random string sorting shows a 76.4% lead (67,209 vs 38,093). Data encryption trails at 63.7% (41,292 vs 25,228), and extended instructions show a 67% gap (42,880 vs 25,669). These workloads benefit from the desktop chip's larger L3 cache and higher core count.

Compute-heavy workloads also favor the desktop part but with slightly smaller margins. Floating-point math shows a 51.2% gap (159,824 vs 105,681), and integer math shows a 39.7% gap (123,030 vs 88,083). Prime-number finding shows a 40.8% lead (452 vs 321). Cinebench results across R15, R20, and R23 all show a consistent 51.4% advantage for multi-core and 51.3% to 51.4% for single-core.

The narrowest wins for the 250KF Plus are in physics simulation (11.4%, 3,183 vs 2,857) and PassMark single-thread (17.3%, 4,698 vs 4,005). These results indicate that the X7 368H is comparatively stronger in lightly threaded, low-cache-sensitivity tasks, though it still loses.

For use-case planning, the 250KF Plus suits workloads that scale with core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth: compression, encryption, sorting, and multi-core rendering. The X7 368H remains competitive only in relative terms, with its smallest deficits in physics and single-threaded integer work, and it offers integrated graphics and mobile packaging where the desktop chip cannot operate.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

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

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

| Cores | 18 | 16 |

| Threads | 18 | 16 |

| Base clock | 4.20 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.30 GHz | 5.00 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) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

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

| Integrated graphics | N/A | Arc B390 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $184 | null |

The base clock difference is substantial at 4.20 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks are closer at 5.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP differs sharply: 125 W for the desktop part versus 25 W for the mobile part. The X7 368H has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records 17 head-to-head comparisons, and the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all of them. The largest margin is in PassMark data compression, where the 250KF Plus scores 553,155 against 312,927, a 76.8% advantage. This workload stresses cache hierarchy and memory subsystem efficiency, where the desktop chip's 30 MB L3 and higher clock speeds deliver a decisive edge.

PassMark random string sorting shows a nearly identical pattern at 76.4% (67,209 vs 38,093). This is another memory-bound test, and the result confirms the desktop part's advantage in data movement tasks. Data encryption shows a 63.7% lead (41,292 vs 25,228), and extended instructions show 67% (42,880 vs 25,669). These four PassMark workloads represent the clearest separation between the two processors.

The Cinebench suite produces remarkably consistent deltas. Multi-core results for R15, R20, and R23 all show 51.4% leads for the 250KF Plus: 4,305 vs 2,844, 17,941 vs 11,852, and 42,718 vs 28,221 respectively. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with R15 at 51.4% (607 vs 401), R20 at 51.3% (2,532 vs 1,673), and R23 at 51.4% (6,030 vs 3,984). The uniformity suggests a fundamental clock and architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

PassMark multithread shows a 52.2% lead (50,146 vs 32,956), slightly above the Cinebench deltas. Floating-point math shows 51.2% (159,824 vs 105,681), closely matching the rendering benchmarks. Integer math shows a smaller 39.7% gap (123,030 vs 88,083), and prime-number finding shows 40.8% (452 vs 321). These integer-heavy workloads compress the gap because they are less dependent on cache and memory bandwidth.

The two closest results define the X7 368H's relative strengths. PassMark physics shows only an 11.4% gap (3,183 vs 2,857), the smallest margin in the entire comparison. PassMark single-thread shows 17.3% (4,698 vs 4,005). These tests rely more on per-core efficiency and less on the desktop chip's additional cores and cache. Even so, the mobile part cannot take a single benchmark.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall positioning. The 250KF Plus averages 66,159, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core 9 273PQE, averages 66,099, a 0.1% difference. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D trails by 0.4% at 65,914. The X7 368H averages 40,518, placing it in the 87th percentile. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core 7 253PE, averages 40,557, a 0.1% difference. The performance class gap between the two reviewed processors is substantial, with the desktop part delivering roughly 63% higher average performance across the recorded benchmark suite.