Intel Core Ultra 7 256V vs Intel Core Ultra 7 268V Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V and Intel Core Ultra 7 268V are nearly identical Lunar Lake twins, but the 268V is the faster part in most high-level CPU workloads, while the 256V snatches a narrow victory in the aggregate count of individual benchmark wins. The 268V takes the crown in Geekbench and Cinebench, with its biggest margin being a 13.2% lead in Geekbench multi-core. The 256V, however, wins 10 of the 19 head-to-head tests, mostly in PassMark sub-tests, but those victories are often by slim margins (0.3% to 2.1%). For users prioritizing raw single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering or general system responsiveness as measured by Geekbench, the 268V is the clear choice. For those running a broader mix of integer, floating-point, and encryption workloads, the 256V offers a more consistent, albeit marginal, advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if modest, performance hierarchy: the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V is the superior processor for most demanding compute tasks. Its boost clock of 5.00 GHz, compared to the 256V's 4.80 GHz, translates directly into wins in the most respected CPU benchmarks. In Cinebench R23, the 268V scores 10653 multi-core and 1921 single-core, beating the 256V's 10399 and 1877.5 by 2.4% and 2.3%, respectively. The gap widens dramatically in Geekbench, where the 268V scores 9963 multi-core and 2270 single-core, versus 8643 and 1990 for the 256V—a 13.2% and 12.3% advantage, respectively.

However, the 256V is not a pushover. It wins 10 of the 19 direct comparisons, including all the major PassMark sub-tests like data compression (184985 vs 181443), integer math (43358 vs 42669), and floating-point math (58576 vs 57628). These wins are consistent, with deltas of 1.6% to 2.1%, but they are small. The 268V wins 9 tests, but its victories are more concentrated in the headline CPU benchmarks. The verdict is that the 268V is the better choice for users who want the fastest possible multi-core rendering and single-thread responsiveness. The 256V is the better choice for users who want a slight edge in a wider variety of compute tasks, but the performance difference is often negligible.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture. They are built on the Lunar Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. Both have 8 cores and 8 threads, with no hyperthreading. The cache hierarchy is identical: 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. They also share the same Intel BGA 2833 socket and a TDP of 17 watts.

The only architectural difference lies in their clock speeds. The 256V has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 268V also has a base clock of 2.20 GHz, but it boosts higher to 5.00 GHz. This 200 MHz boost difference is the sole source of the performance delta between the two chips. Both integrate the Arc 140V graphics, support dual-channel memory, and provide PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes. They are functionally the same silicon, with the 268V simply binned for higher boost frequencies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split. The 268V dominates in the two most prominent benchmark suites, while the 256V wins the majority of the individual tests. The biggest win for the 268V is in Geekbench multi-core, where it scores 9963 against the 256V's 8643, a 13.2% advantage. The single-core Geekbench test also heavily favors the 268V, with a score of 2270 versus 1990, a 12.3% lead. In Cinebench, the 268V leads in R15 multi-core (1616 vs 1583.5, a 2% delta), R15 single-core (293 vs 285.5, a 2.6% delta), R23 multi-core (10653 vs 10399, a 2.4% delta), and R23 single-core (1921 vs 1877.5, a 2.3% delta). It also wins PassMark physics (1617 vs 1595) and single-thread tests (4051 vs 4029).

The 256V's wins are mostly in PassMark. It leads in data compression (184985 vs 181443, 2%), data encryption (13998 vs 13779, 1.6%), extended instructions (15643 vs 15323, 2.1%), floating-point math (58576 vs 57628, 1.6%), integer math (43358 vs 42669, 1.6%), multithread (19530 vs 19297, 1.2%), and random string sorting (22481 vs 22416, 0.3%). It also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core (6958 vs 6887, 1%) and single-core (982 vs 972, 1%). In the prime numbers test, they are tied at 192. The 268V's wins are larger in magnitude, while the 256V's wins are more numerous but smaller in size.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two processors are nearly identical, with only one field differing.

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 256V | Intel Core Ultra 7 268V |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| Part Number | SRPMPSRPMZ | SRPMLSRPMX |

All other specifications are the same: 8 cores, 8 threads, 2.20 GHz base clock, 17 W TDP, Intel BGA 2833 socket, Lunar Lake architecture, 3 nm TSMC process, 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, 12 MB shared L3, dual-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes, Arc 140V integrated graphics, mobile market segment, and active production status. Both were released on 2024-09-23 and are not multiplier unlocked.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Geekbench?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V is significantly faster. It scores 9963 in multi-core and 2270 in single-core, compared to the 256V's 8643 and 1990, representing a 13.2% and 12.3% lead, respectively.

Q: Does the 256V ever beat the 268V?

A: Yes, the 256V wins 10 of the 19 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its wins are primarily in PassMark sub-tests, including data compression (184985 vs 181443), integer math (43358 vs 42669), and floating-point math (58576 vs 57628). It also wins both Cinebench R20 tests.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The 268V leads in both tests. In multi-core, it scores 10653 versus 10399 for the 256V, a 2.4% difference. In single-core, it scores 1921 versus 1877.5, a 2.3% difference.

Q: Are these CPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are based on the Lunar Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC. They share the same core count, cache sizes, and integrated graphics (Arc 140V).

Q: What is the main reason the 268V is faster in some tests?

A: The sole specification difference is the boost clock. The 268V has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the 256V has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. This allows the 268V to execute single-threaded and lightly-threaded workloads faster.

Q: Which chip wins more benchmarks overall?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V wins 10 benchmarks, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V wins 9. The 256V's wins are more numerous, but the 268V's wins are by larger margins.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V is the winner for applications that are heavily dependent on single-core performance or that scale well with the higher boost clock. This is evident in its wins across all Cinebench R15 and R23 tests, as well as Geekbench. The 13.2% and 12.3% leads in Geekbench multi-core and single-core are substantial. This makes the 268V the better choice for tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and general desktop responsiveness, where software often relies on a few fast cores or where the higher clock speed provides a direct benefit.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V is the winner for a broader range of mixed compute workloads. Its wins in PassMark data compression, encryption, integer math, floating-point math, and multithread tests suggest that it handles a wider variety of instruction types with slightly better efficiency. While the margins are small (typically around 1.6% to 2.1%), they are consistent. This makes the 256V a slightly better fit for users who run a diverse set of applications, such as data processing, scientific computing, or compression tasks, where these sub-tests matter. In the end, the 268V is the faster chip for the most demanding tasks, but the 256V offers a more balanced, if marginally slower, overall profile.