Intel Core Ultra 7 258V vs Intel Core Ultra 7 268V Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V is the faster chip in nearly every recorded benchmark. Out of 19 head-to-head tests, it wins 18, with only a single loss to the 258V in PassMark integer math. The 268V leads by margins that range from a slim 0.4% in floating-point math to a substantial 8.1% in Geekbench single-core. If your priority is raw performance in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, the data points squarely at the 268V.

The 258V is not without merit, but its advantages are narrow. It matches the 268V in core count, thread count, cache layout, integrated graphics, and power envelope. The only specification where it pulls ahead is memory bandwidth: the 258V is recorded with 136.5 GB/s, while the 268V has no listed memory bandwidth figure. For users who value that specific memory throughput metric, the 258V has something to offer, but the benchmark results do not show it translating into wins.

For most buyers, the choice is clear: the 268V delivers more performance per core and more performance across the board. The 258V is a defensible pick only if you specifically need the higher memory bandwidth specification or if you are locked into a platform that uses it. Otherwise, the 268V is the stronger recommendation based on the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-core performance?

A: The 268V wins every single-core test. It leads by 2.8% in Cinebench R15, 2.2% in R20, 2.6% in R23, and 8.1% in Geekbench single-core. The PassMark single-thread scores are closer, with the 268V ahead by 0.8%.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core workloads?

A: The 268V wins all multi-core benchmarks. The widest margin is in Geekbench multi-core at 6.8%, while Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 3.4% lead. The smallest multi-core gap is 1.2% in Cinebench R15.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes. Both have 8 cores and 8 threads. They also share the same base clock of 2.20 GHz, the same 17W TDP, and the same 12 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the 258V wins?

A: Yes, one. In PassMark integer math, the 258V scores 42889 versus 42669 for the 268V, a delta of -0.5% in favor of the 258V. That is the only recorded win for the 258V.

Q: What is the main specification difference between the two?

A: The boost clock and memory support. The 268V boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the 258V boosts to 4.80 GHz. The 258V lists LPDDR5X memory support with a bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s; the 268V lists memory support as unknown and dependent on the motherboard.

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes. Both are at the 74th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Their average benchmark scores are close: 20897 for the 268V and 20454 for the 258V.

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 socket: Intel BGA 2833. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and both are marked for the mobile market segment.

The cache hierarchy is identical. Each core gets 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. There is no 3D V-Cache on either part, and ECC memory is not supported. Both use dual-channel memory and PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics are the same on both: Arc 140V. That means any graphics-related tasks will rely on the same iGPU hardware. The production status is Active for both, and both were released on the same date: 2024-09-23.

The key architectural differences are limited to frequency and memory configuration. The 268V has a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz on the 258V. The 258V specifies LPDDR5X memory support with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, while the 268V leaves memory support listed as motherboard-dependent. These are not fundamental architecture changes; they are binning and platform-level differences within the same design.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs share most specifications, so the differences are concentrated in a few fields. Here is where they diverge:

• Boost clock: The 268V reaches 5.00 GHz; the 258V tops out at 4.80 GHz. That is a 0.20 GHz advantage for the 268V.
• Memory support: The 258V lists LPDDR5X with a bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The 268V lists memory support as unknown and dependent on the motherboard.
• Part number: The 268V is SRPMLSRPMX; the 258V is SRPMNSRPMT.

Everything else matches: 8 cores, 8 threads, 2.20 GHz base clock, 17W 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 no ECC support.

The boost clock difference is the most likely driver of the 268V's performance advantage. A 0.20 GHz higher ceiling explains why the 268V wins nearly every single-threaded and multi-threaded test by a small but consistent margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 268V dominates the head-to-head results across all major test categories. Starting with Cinebench, the 268V leads in R15 multi-core with 1616 versus 1596.5, a 1.2% margin. In R15 single-core, it scores 293 versus 285, a 2.8% lead. R20 multi-core shows 6887 versus 6739, a 2.2% gap, and R20 single-core shows 972 versus 951, also 2.2%. The largest Cinebench delta is in R23 multi-core: 10653 versus 10301, a 3.4% advantage for the 268V.

Geekbench results are even more lopsided. The 268V scores 9963 in multi-core versus 9325 for the 258V, a 6.8% lead. In single-core, the 268V scores 2270 versus 2100, an 8.1% lead. These are the two biggest percentage wins in the entire comparison.

PassMark tests show a mixed but mostly favorable picture for the 268V. It wins data compression with 181443 versus 176686, a 2.7% edge. Data encryption goes to the 268V at 13779 versus 13534, up 1.8%. Extended instructions favor the 268V by 4.1%, with scores of 15323 versus 14717. Prime number finding shows a 3.8% lead for the 268V, 192 versus 185. Floating-point math is close: 57628 versus 57372, only 0.4% apart. The 268V also wins multithread with 19297 versus 18887, up 2.2%, and physics with 1617 versus 1565, up 3.3%. Random string sorting goes to the 268V at 22416 versus 21580, a 3.9% margin.

The single loss for the 268V comes in PassMark integer math. The 258V scores 42889, edging out the 268V's 42669 by 0.5%. This is the only test where the 258V comes out ahead, and the margin is small.

The single-thread PassMark test shows the 268V ahead at 4051 versus 4018, a 0.8% margin, and the duplicate singlethread result matches exactly.

Where Each One Wins

The 268V wins in every category except one. It is the stronger choice for single-core performance, multi-core performance, data compression, encryption, extended instruction workloads, prime number calculations, physics simulations, random string sorting, and overall multithreaded throughput. The widest margins are in Geekbench single-core and multi-core, which suggests the 268V has a meaningful advantage in general-purpose computing tasks that scale with clock speed and efficiency.

For users who run Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the 268V is consistently ahead by 1.2% to 3.4%. For those who rely on Geekbench-style tests, the advantage grows to 6.8% to 8.1%. That makes the 268V the clear pick for productivity, content creation, and any workload that benefits from higher boost clocks.

The 258V has exactly one win: PassMark integer math, where it leads by 0.5%. This is a narrow margin and unlikely to matter in real-world use. The 258V also carries the only listed memory bandwidth figure at 136.5 GB/s, which is a specification advantage on paper. If your workflow is heavily dependent on integer math and you also need the specified LPDDR5X bandwidth, the 258V is the only choice. Otherwise, the 268V is the better processor in every recorded performance category.

In summary, the 268V is the faster part in 18 of 19 tests, and its advantages are largest in single-core and multi-core Geekbench scores. The 258V is a close second, but it only wins one niche test. The data says to pick the 268V unless you specifically need the 258V's memory bandwidth specification.