Intel Core Ultra 7 256V vs Intel Core Ultra 7 258V Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V and Intel Core Ultra 7 258V are two mobile processors from the same Lunar Lake family, sharing the same core count, clock speeds, and integrated graphics. On paper they appear nearly identical, yet the recorded benchmark data reveals a clear split in performance across different workloads. The 256V wins 16 of the 19 head-to-head comparisons, while the 258V takes the remaining 3, including the Geekbench tests. This pattern suggests that despite their shared architecture, the two chips respond differently to various types of software loads, and it is worth examining where each one excels and why.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V is the dominant performer in the majority of measured tests. Its wins span Cinebench R20 and R23, both multi-core and single-core, as well as nearly every PassMark workload. The largest advantage appears in PassMark extended instructions, where the 256V scores 15,643 against the 258V’s 14,717, a lead of 6.3 percent. It also wins PassMark data compression with a score of 184,985 compared to 176,686, a 4.7 percent margin, and random string sorting at 22,481 versus 21,580, a 4.2 percent advantage. In Cinebench R20, the 256V leads by 3.2 percent in multi-core (6,958 vs. 6,739) and by 3.3 percent in single-core (982 vs. 951). The 256V also wins PassMark multithread (19,530 vs. 18,887), integer math (43,358 vs. 42,889), floating point math (58,576 vs. 57,372), and physics (1,595 vs. 1,565), all with margins between 1.1 and 3.4 percent. Even in the tightest races, such as Cinebench R23 single-core (1,877.5 vs. 1,872, a 0.3 percent edge) and PassMark single-thread (4,029 vs. 4,018, also 0.3 percent), the 256V holds a narrow lead.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V, meanwhile, wins decisively in the Geekbench suite. In Geekbench multi-core, it scores 9,325 against the 256V’s 8,643, a substantial 7.3 percent advantage. In Geekbench single-core, it records 2,100 versus 1,990, a 5.2 percent lead. The 258V also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core, scoring 1,596.5 against the 256V’s 1,583.5, though the margin is just 0.8 percent. These three wins suggest the 258V has a particular strength in workloads that Geekbench emphasizes, which may include memory latency, branch prediction, or other microarchitectural behaviors that differ subtly from Cinebench or PassMark. The data does not specify which exact operations Geekbench prioritizes, but the consistency of its Geekbench victories across both single and multi-core indicates a systematic advantage rather than a random fluctuation.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Lunar Lake architecture, using a 3 nm process node from TSMC. They share the same codename, generation, and series: Core Ultra Series 2, Ultra 7 (Lunar Lake). Each has 8 cores and 8 threads, with no hyperthreading indicated. The base clock is identical at 2.20 GHz, and the boost clock is also identical at 4.80 GHz. The cache hierarchy is exactly the same: 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. Both use dual-channel memory, PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), and integrate Arc 140V graphics. The socket is Intel BGA 2833 for both, and both are marked as mobile market segment chips with active production status.

The key architectural difference lies in memory support. The 256V lists its memory support as “unknown, depends on motherboard,” while the 258V explicitly supports LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. This is a notable divergence, as the 258V’s memory configuration is fully specified, whereas the 256V’s memory details are left undefined in the database. This could imply that the 256V’s memory capabilities are board-dependent, potentially leading to variable performance depending on the system it is installed in. The 258V’s fixed LPDDR5X support with a rated bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s likely contributes to its Geekbench wins, as memory bandwidth and latency often play a larger role in Geekbench’s workload mix than in Cinebench’s rendering loops or PassMark’s math routines.

Another difference appears in the part numbers: the 256V is listed as SRPMPSRPMZ, while the 258V is SRPMNSRPMT. This is merely an identifier, but it confirms they are distinct SKUs despite their similarities. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both lack ECC memory support. The release date is the same for both: September 23, 2024. No launch MSRP is recorded for either, so pricing comparisons are not possible from the data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 256V has an average benchmark score of 21,112, which places it in the 75th percentile of all CPUs. The 258V has an average score of 20,454, placing it in the 74th percentile. The 256V is marginally ahead in overall average.

Q: How do the two processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 256V’s closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U, which has an average score of 21,133, a 0.1 percent difference. The 258V’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 5600, with an average score of 20,468, also a 0.1 percent difference. Other nearby rivals for the 256V include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600G (21,088, 0.1 percent behind) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 155U (21,174, 0.3 percent ahead). For the 258V, the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (20,425, 0.1 percent behind) and AMD EPYC 9454P (20,422, 0.2 percent behind) are close.

Q: Which chip wins in single-core performance?

A: The 256V wins most single-core tests. It leads in Cinebench R15 single-core (285.5 vs. 285), Cinebench R20 single-core (982 vs. 951), Cinebench R23 single-core (1,877.5 vs. 1,872), and PassMark single-thread (4,029 vs. 4,018). The 258V wins only Geekbench single-core (2,100 vs. 1,990).

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The 258V specifies a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s with LPDDR5X support. The 256V’s memory support is listed as unknown and depends on the motherboard, so no bandwidth figure is recorded for it. This is the only major specification difference between the two chips.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the 258V is ahead by more than 5 percent?

A: Yes, the 258V wins Geekbench multi-core by 7.3 percent (9,325 vs. 8,643) and Geekbench single-core by 5.2 percent (2,100 vs. 1,990). Its third win, Cinebench R15 multi-core, is only 0.8 percent ahead.

Q: How many total wins does each processor have?

A: The 256V wins 16 of the 19 head-to-head tests. The 258V wins 3 tests: Geekbench multi-core, Geekbench single-core, and Cinebench R15 multi-core.

Specification Differences

The only recorded specification where the two processors differ is memory support. The 256V lists “unknown, depends on motherboard,” while the 258V lists LPDDR5X. This also leads to a difference in memory bandwidth: the 258V has a rated 136.5 GB/s, while the 256V has no bandwidth figure recorded. All other specifications are identical: 8 cores, 8 threads, 2.20 GHz base clock, 4.80 GHz boost clock, 17 W TDP, Intel BGA 2833 socket, Lunar Lake architecture, 3 nm process node, TSMC foundry, 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, 12 MB L3, dual-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes, Arc 140V integrated graphics, mobile market segment, active production status, September 23, 2024 release date, no unlocked multiplier, no ECC support, and no launch MSRP. The part numbers differ (SRPMPSRPMZ for the 256V, SRPMNSRPMT for the 258V), but this is not a functional specification.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the 256V is PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 15,643 against 14,717, a 6.3 percent advantage. This test often involves SIMD operations and specialized instruction sets, suggesting the 256V may have a more favorable behavior under such loads, even though the architecture is nominally the same. The next biggest win is PassMark data compression at 4.7 percent (184,985 vs. 176,686), followed by PassMark random string sorting at 4.2 percent (22,481 vs. 21,580). In PassMark find prime numbers, the 256V leads by 3.8 percent (192 vs. 185). PassMark data encryption shows a 3.4 percent edge (13,998 vs. 13,534), and PassMark multithread also shows 3.4 percent (19,530 vs. 18,887). Cinebench R20 single-core is another notable win for the 256V, with a 3.3 percent margin (982 vs. 951). Cinebench R20 multi-core follows at 3.2 percent (6,958 vs. 6,739). Smaller wins include PassMark floating point math at 2.1 percent (58,576 vs. 57,372), PassMark physics at 1.9 percent (1,595 vs. 1,565), PassMark integer math at 1.1 percent (43,358 vs. 42,889), and Cinebench R23 multi-core at 1 percent (10,399 vs. 10,301). The narrowest margins are Cinebench R23 single-core at 0.3 percent (1,877.5 vs. 1,872), PassMark single-thread at 0.3 percent (4,029 vs. 4,018), and Cinebench R15 single-core at 0.2 percent (285.5 vs. 285).

The 258V’s largest win is Geekbench multi-core at 7.3 percent (9,325 vs. 8,643), which is also the largest margin of any head-to-head test in either direction. Geekbench single-core is its second win, at 5.2 percent (2,100 vs. 1,990). Its third win, Cinebench R15 multi-core, is minor at 0.8 percent (1,596.5 vs. 1,583.5). The pattern is striking: the 258V does not merely edge out the 256V in Geekbench, it substantially outperforms it, while the 256V’s wins are mostly small to moderate, with only one test exceeding 5 percent. This suggests the 258V’s advantage is concentrated in a specific type of workload, while the 256V offers a more broadly consistent, if modest, superiority across many other tests.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V is the better choice for users who prioritize a wide range of compute tasks. It wins 16 of 19 benchmarks, including all Cinebench R20 and R23 tests, all PassMark tests except none (it wins all of them), and Cinebench R15 single-core. Its average benchmark score of 21,112 is higher than the 258V’s 20,454, and it ranks in the 75th percentile of all CPUs versus the 258V’s 74th. For workloads such as rendering, data compression, encryption, math operations, and sorting, the 256V consistently delivers higher scores, with the most significant gains in extended instructions and data compression.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is the better choice for users whose applications align with Geekbench’s test methodology. Its 7.3 percent lead in Geekbench multi-core and 5.2 percent lead in single-core are substantial and cannot be dismissed as noise. The 258V’s explicit LPDDR5X support with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth may explain this advantage, as Geekbench often exercises memory access patterns more heavily than Cinebench or PassMark. If a user’s primary software is known to correlate with Geekbench scores, the 258V offers a clear performance benefit. Otherwise, the 256V’s broader set of wins and higher average score make it the more versatile processor. The data does not support a universal winner, but it does support a clear split: the 256V for general compute, the 258V for Geekbench-sensitive workloads.