Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture for this matchup. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H claiming a single victory. The margins are substantial across most workloads, though a few tests show closer competition.

The Cinebench suite delivers the most uniform results. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4305 in Cinebench R15 multicore against 3281 for the Ultra X9 378H, a 31.2% advantage. Single-core performance in R15 shows the same gap, with 607 versus 462, a 31.4% lead. R20 multicore continues the pattern: 17941 versus 13672, a 31.2% delta. The R20 single-core result is 2532 versus 1929, a 31.3% margin. R23 multicore shows 42718 versus 32553, again 31.2%, and R23 single-core delivers 6030 versus 4595, a 31.2% difference. These consistent margins indicate a fundamental performance tier separation rather than workload-specific behavior.

The PassMark suite reveals where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus stretches its lead further. Random string sorting shows the largest gap of any test, 67209 versus 44648, a 50.5% advantage. Floating point math follows with 159824 versus 114500, a 39.6% margin. Data encryption scores 41292 versus 29840, a 38.4% lead. Extended instructions deliver 42880 versus 31315, a 36.9% gap. Integer math shows 123030 versus 92603, a 32.9% advantage. Data compression completes the picture at 553155 versus 386591, a 43.1% lead. These results indicate that the Ultra 5 250KF Plus handles computational density and throughput-oriented tasks with notably greater efficiency.

The single exception comes in PassMark physics, where the Ultra X9 378H scores 3404 against 3183 for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a 6.5% advantage. This is the only test where the mobile chip outperforms the desktop part. The physics workload appears to favor the mobile processor's characteristics despite its lower overall benchmark average.

PassMark multithread and single-thread results complete the dataset. Multithread scores 50146 versus 38298, a 30.9% lead. Single-thread shows a closer contest at 4698 versus 4453, a 5.5% margin. The single-thread result appears twice in the database under slightly different test names, with identical scores and deltas.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus holds a 66159 average against 47468 for the Ultra X9 378H. The desktop chip also sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the mobile part ranks at the 89th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus include the Intel Core 9 273PQE at 66099 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 (0.4% behind), the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855 (1% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66925 (1.1% ahead). For the Ultra X9 378H, the closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 at 47527 (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i7-13700KF at 47330 (0.3% behind), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T at 47697 (0.5% ahead), and the Intel Core i9-12900F at 47176 (0.6% behind).

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers superior results in 16 of 17 benchmark comparisons, with margins ranging from 5.5% to 50.5%. The average benchmark score difference of nearly 40% places the desktop chip in a different competitive class.

For desktop workloads involving rendering, compression, encryption, or mathematical computation, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the stronger choice. Its 31.2% advantage across all three Cinebench versions and its 30.9% lead in PassMark multithread demonstrate consistent multicore superiority. The 50.5% margin in random string sorting and 43.1% in data compression show particular strength in data manipulation tasks.

The Ultra X9 378H offers its only advantage in PassMark physics, where it leads by 6.5%. This single result does not offset the broader performance gap, but it does indicate that the mobile processor handles physics simulation workloads acceptably. The Ultra X9 378H also records a lower average benchmark score of 47468, placing it alongside desktop processors like the Intel Core i7-13700KF and Intel Core i9-12900F in the database rankings.

The single-thread results deserve attention. While the Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by only 5.5% in PassMark single-thread, the Cinebench single-core tests show a much larger 31.2% to 31.4% gap. This discrepancy suggests that the two processors respond differently to the specific instructions and workload patterns in each benchmark suite.

The percentile rankings support the overall assessment. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus at the 93rd percentile and the Ultra X9 378H at the 89th percentile represent adjacent performance tiers, but the benchmark deltas show that the desktop part consistently outperforms the mobile part by wide margins in most tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins 16 of 17 recorded tests. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins only the PassMark physics test.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: PassMark random string sorting shows the biggest difference, with the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scoring 67209 against 44648 for the Ultra X9 378H, a 50.5% advantage.

Q: How do the processors compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads in both recorded single-thread tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 6030 versus 4595, a 31.2% margin. PassMark single-thread shows 4698 versus 4453, a 5.5% margin.

Q: Where does the Ultra X9 378H perform better than the Ultra 5 250KF Plus?

A: The Ultra X9 378H wins PassMark physics with a score of 3404 against 3183, a 6.5% advantage. This is its only head-to-head victory.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66159. The Ultra X9 378H has an average benchmark score of 47468.

Q: How do the processors rank against all CPUs?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra X9 378H sits at the 89th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Ultra X9 378H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: 4.20 GHz for the desktop chip against 2.00 GHz for the mobile chip. Boost clocks are closer, with 5.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz.

Thermal design power shows the largest specification gap. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus carries a 125 watt TDP, while the Ultra X9 378H draws only 25 watts. This fivefold difference reflects their intended market segments: desktop versus mobile.

The socket and platform differ completely. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Ultra X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540. The desktop chip offers an unlocked multiplier, while the mobile part is locked. The part numbers also differ, with SA4V3 for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus and unknown for the Ultra X9 378H.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel operation and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but with higher bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the desktop chip but not on the mobile chip.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the desktop chip has none, while the mobile chip includes Arc B390 graphics.

Architecture Differences

The processors come from different generations and codenames within Intel's lineup. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, using the Arrow Lake Refresh codename with a generation label of Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake). The Ultra X9 378H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, using the Panther Lake codename with a generation label of Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H).

Both processors use a 3 nm process node, but they come from different foundries. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus is fabricated by TSMC, while the Ultra X9 378H is fabricated by Intel. The desktop chip has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The mobile chip has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache configurations differ in L2 and L3 capacity. Both processors share the same L1 cache at 192 KB per core. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses 3 MB of L2 per core and 30 MB of shared L3. The Ultra X9 378H uses 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. Neither processor uses 3D V-Cache.

Release timing separates the two by less than a month. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a release date of 2026-03-10 and a launch MSRP of $184. The Ultra X9 378H has a release date of 2026-04-03 and no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are listed as Active in production status.

Market segments define their intended use cases. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus targets desktop systems, while the Ultra X9 378H targets mobile systems. The desktop chip's higher core count, larger cache, and higher power envelope align with stationary performance expectations. The mobile chip's lower power draw and integrated graphics align with portable system requirements.