Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the performance gap between the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and the Intel Processor N150 in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by a wide margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 42,718 versus 2,590.5 for the N150, a delta of 1,549%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the gap is 918.9%, with scores of 4,305 and 422.5 respectively.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates single-core tests as well. It scores 6,030 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 935 for the N150, a 544.9% difference. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the scores are 607 and 153.15, a 296.3% gap.

Q: How do the two chips compare in terms of core count and threading?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts match core counts for both.

Q: What are the cache configurations of these two processors?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The N150 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel memory bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but uses a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score relative to all CPUs in the database?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits in the 93rd percentile with an average benchmark score of 66,159. The N150 sits in the 28th percentile with an average score of 1,025. The nearest rival to the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the Intel Core 9 273PQE, with a delta of 0.1%, while the N150's nearest rival is the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T, also at a delta of 0.1%.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is built on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Its process node is 3 nm, fabricated by TSMC, with a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The Intel Processor N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture, part of the Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) generation, built on a 10 nm process by Intel. It has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus packs 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The N150 offers 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The massive core-count disparity explains most of the multi-core performance difference.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The N150 provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also has an unlocked multiplier, while the N150 is locked.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Intel Socket 1851, targets the desktop market segment, and has no integrated graphics. The N150 uses Intel BGA 1264, targets mobile, and includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory, while the N150 does not. PCIe capabilities also differ: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the N150 supports Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all four head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with winsA equal to 4 and winsB equal to 0. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42,718 against the N150's 2,590.5, a delta of 1,549%. This result reflects the 14-core advantage and the higher memory bandwidth available to the desktop chip.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scoring 4,305 versus 422.5 for the N150, a 918.9% delta. This test emphasizes sustained multi-threaded rendering, where the combination of 18 cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, and dual-channel DDR5 bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s produces a decisive lead. The N150's single-channel memory bus at 38.4 GB/s limits its scaling.

Single-core results also favor the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus heavily. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the score is 6,030 versus 935, a 544.9% delta. The boost clock of 5.30 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, versus 3.60 GHz on the N150, contributes directly to this gap. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 607 versus 153.15, a 296.3% delta, confirming that the architectural and clock-speed differences are not limited to multi-core scaling.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also holds strong positions in its broader benchmark suite. In PassMark multi-thread, it scores 50,146, and in PassMark single-thread, 4,698. The N150 has no recorded PassMark results in the database, so cross-comparison is limited to the Cinebench tests.

Percentile data reinforces the separation. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66,159. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core 9 273PQE (delta 0.1%), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (delta 0.4%), Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (delta -1%), and AMD EPYC 4465P (delta -1.1%). The N150 ranks in the 28th percentile, with an average score of 1,025, and its nearest rivals are the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T (delta 0.1%), Intel Core i3-4340 (delta -0.1%), AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U (delta 0.1%), and Intel Core i7-5650U (delta -0.2%). The average benchmark score gap between the two is roughly 64 times in favor of the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores versus 4 cores for the N150, and 18 threads versus 4 threads. Base clocks are 4.20 GHz versus 0.10 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.30 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. Thermal design power is 125 watts versus 6 watts, a 119-watt difference that reflects the desktop versus mobile positioning.

Socket types differ: Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, Intel BGA 1264 for the N150. The codenames are Arrow Lake Refresh and Twin Lake, respectively. The process node is 3 nm (TSMC) versus 10 nm (Intel). Transistor count is 17,800 million for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with no recorded value for the N150. Die size is 243 mm² for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with no recorded value for the N150.

Cache configurations differ in structure: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. The N150 has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support differs as well: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 only, dual-channel, with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, single-channel, with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus but not on the N150. PCIe support is Gen 5 with 20 lanes on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, versus Gen 3 with 9 lanes on the N150. Integrated graphics are absent on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, while the N150 includes UHD Graphics 730. The market segments are desktop versus mobile. The multiplier is unlocked on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and locked on the N150. Release dates are 2026-03-10 for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and 2024-11-19 for the N150. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is $184; the N150 has no recorded launch MSRP. Part numbers are SA4V3 and SRPNR, respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in every recorded benchmark comparison. Its strengths lie in heavily multi-threaded workloads, where 18 cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, and dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s produce results that are over an order of magnitude faster than the N150. Cinebench R23 multi-core, with a 1,549% delta, represents the extreme case. For desktop users running rendering, compilation, data compression, encryption, or floating-point math, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers the highest recorded scores in the database for its class. Its PassMark data compression score of 553,155, data encryption score of 41,292, and floating-point math score of 159,824 further confirm its suitability for compute-heavy tasks.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also wins in single-core performance, with a 544.9% delta in Cinebench R23 single-core versus the N150. Its boost clock of 5.30 GHz and 3 nm TSMC process give it an advantage in latency-sensitive applications, such as physics simulations (PassMark physics score of 3,183) and integer math (PassMark integer math score of 123,030). The unlocked multiplier allows for additional tuning, though no overclocking data is recorded in the database.

The Intel Processor N150, despite losing all four head-to-head benchmarks, has its own domain. Its 6-watt TDP makes it suitable for low-power mobile applications. The integrated UHD Graphics 730 provides a display output without a discrete GPU, which is not possible on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus due to its lack of integrated graphics. The N150's support for DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory gives system designers flexibility in memory selection, and its single-channel bus at 38.4 GB/s is adequate for lightweight tasks. Its BGA 1264 socket and mobile market segment indicate it is designed for compact, fanless or low-noise systems where the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus's 125-watt TDP and desktop socket would be impractical.

The database records no benchmark wins for the N150, but its 28th percentile ranking places it near other low-power processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U and Intel Core i7-5650U. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, by contrast, sits at the 93rd percentile, close to the Intel Core 9 273PQE and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D. The use-case split is clear: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is for performance-critical desktop workloads, while the N150 serves power-constrained mobile or embedded roles where integrated graphics and memory flexibility matter more than raw compute.