Intel Core Ultra 7 258V vs Intel Xeon 6325P Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6325P and Intel Core Ultra 7 258V occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their benchmark scores place them within striking distance of each other in the database’s overall rankings. The Xeon 6325P, a server and workstation part with 4 cores and 8 threads, uses a 10 nm Raptor Lake architecture and a 5.20 GHz boost clock. The Core Ultra 7 258V, a mobile processor with 8 cores and 8 threads, relies on a 3 nm Lunar Lake design from TSMC, boosting to 4.80 GHz. Both achieve a 74th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 20821 for the Xeon and 20454 for the Ultra 7. This near parity in overall standing masks a clear split: the Xeon wins 6 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Ultra 7 takes 11. The data shows two very different design philosophies producing comparable aggregate results, with each chip dominating in distinct workload categories.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is the clear winner in most compute-heavy and latency-sensitive tasks. It outperforms the Xeon 6325P by 31.6% in Cinebench R15 single-core, 14.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 34.8% in PassMark physics. The Ultra 7 also dominates in floating-point math, scoring 57372 versus 37265, a 35% advantage, and in prime number finding, where it scores 185 against the Xeon’s 66, a 64.3% gap. Encryption and extended instruction workloads also favor the mobile chip, with 31.2% and 20.9% leads respectively. These results indicate the Ultra 7 is better suited for interactive, single-threaded, and mathematically intensive applications.

The Intel Xeon 6325P wins where sustained multi-core throughput and integer operations matter most. Its biggest victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 13717 against the Ultra 7’s 10301, a 33.2% advantage. It also leads in PassMark integer math by 14.6% (49151 versus 42889) and in PassMark single-thread by 4.9% (4213 versus 4018). Data compression is a narrow win for the Xeon, 178020 versus 176686, a 0.8% margin. The Xeon’s higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz and 55 W TDP, compared to the Ultra 7’s 17 W TDP, appear to drive these wins in long-running, multi-threaded workloads that benefit from the server chip’s power budget.

The use-case split is straightforward: the Core Ultra 7 258V fits mobile and general-purpose computing where single-thread speed and power efficiency are paramount, while the Xeon 6325P targets server and workstation environments where sustained integer and multi-core performance in Cinebench R23 matter more. The Ultra 7’s integrated Arc 140V graphics also make it a more complete package for systems without a discrete GPU, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon 6325P wins decisively with a score of 13717, which is 33.2% higher than the Core Ultra 7 258V’s 10301.

Q: How does single-core performance compare between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 7 258V leads in Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core tests by 31.6% and 14.5% respectively, but the Xeon 6325P edges it out in PassMark single-thread by 4.9% (4213 versus 4018) and in Cinebench R23 single-core by 3.4% (1936 versus 1872).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Xeon 6325P has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 258V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Ultra 7 has no hyper-threading, so its thread count equals its core count.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon 6325P supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 258V does not, and it is limited to LPDDR5X memory, while the Xeon supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: How do the two chips compare in encryption workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 7 258V is significantly faster in PassMark data encryption, scoring 13534 against the Xeon’s 9311, a 31.2% advantage.

Q: What are the power envelopes of these processors?

A: The Xeon 6325P has a TDP of 55 W, while the Core Ultra 7 258V has a TDP of 17 W. This makes the Ultra 7 far more suitable for battery-powered mobile devices.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results reveal a pattern of trade-offs between raw throughput and efficiency-oriented performance. The Xeon 6325P’s largest win is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 13717 versus 10301, a 33.2% margin. This is the most lopsided result in favor of the Xeon across all tests. The Ultra 7’s largest win is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 185 against 66, a 64.3% margin, the biggest gap in either direction. These two results frame the central difference: the Xeon excels at sustained multi-threaded rendering, while the Ultra 7 crushes mathematically intense single-threaded workloads.

In Cinebench R15 and R20, the Ultra 7 wins both multi-core and single-core tests. R15 multi-core sees the Ultra 7 at 1596.5 versus 1382, a 13.4% lead, and R15 single-core is 285 versus 195, a 31.6% lead. R20 multi-core is 6739 versus 5761, a 14.5% lead, and R20 single-core is 951 versus 813, also a 14.5% lead. The Ultra 7 also wins PassMark multithread with 18887 versus 16138, a 14.6% margin, and PassMark physics with 1565 versus 1020, a 34.8% margin. Floating-point math goes to the Ultra 7 at 57372 versus 37265, a 35% advantage, and extended instructions favor it at 14717 versus 11645, a 20.9% lead. Random string sorting is another Ultra 7 win, 21580 versus 19113, an 11.4% margin.

The Xeon 6325P counters with wins in PassMark integer math, 49151 versus 42889, a 14.6% advantage, and in PassMark single-thread, 4213 versus 4018, a 4.9% margin. It also takes Cinebench R23 single-core by a slim 3.4% (1936 versus 1872) and data compression by 0.8% (178020 versus 176686). The data shows that the Xeon’s higher clock speeds and larger power envelope give it an edge in integer-heavy and compression tasks, while the Ultra 7’s newer 3 nm process and higher core count drive its wins in floating-point, encryption, and physics simulations.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Xeon 6325P uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 258V uses Intel BGA 2833. The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads, whereas the Ultra 7 has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 3.50 GHz for the Xeon and 2.20 GHz for the Ultra 7, but boost clocks are 5.20 GHz and 4.80 GHz respectively. TDP is a major differentiator: the Xeon draws 55 W, the Ultra 7 only 17 W.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Xeon supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory, while the Ultra 7 supports only LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the Ultra 7 does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the Xeon offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon has no integrated graphics, but the Ultra 7 includes Arc 140V. The Xeon is a server and workstation part, while the Ultra 7 is a mobile part. The Xeon’s launch MSRP is $281; the Ultra 7 has no recorded launch MSRP. The Xeon was released on 2025-02-23, the Ultra 7 on 2024-09-23.

Cache structures are also distinct. The Xeon has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7’s larger per-core caches align with its higher single-thread performance in several tests, while the Xeon’s matching 12 MB L3 and higher boost clock support its multi-core wins.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is defined by process node and design philosophy. The Xeon 6325P uses Raptor Lake, a 10 nm architecture manufactured by Intel, with the codename Raptor Lake-R and a die size of 163 mm². The Core Ultra 7 258V uses Lunar Lake, a 3 nm architecture manufactured by TSMC, with no recorded die size. The Xeon belongs to the Xeon 6 generation (Raptor Lake Refresh), while the Ultra 7 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation (Lunar Lake). The foundry difference alone explains much of the performance-per-watt gap: the Ultra 7 delivers competitive or superior scores in most tests while consuming less than a third of the Xeon’s TDP.

Core design differs as well. The Xeon’s 4 cores each have 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2, while the Ultra 7’s 8 cores each have 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2. Both share 12 MB of L3, but the Ultra 7’s larger per-core caches and 3 nm process give it a substantial advantage in latency-sensitive and floating-point workloads. The Xeon compensates with a 5.20 GHz boost clock, 0.40 GHz higher than the Ultra 7’s 4.80 GHz, and a 55 W power budget that allows sustained high-frequency operation. The Xeon supports ECC memory and DDR4/DDR5, features aimed at server reliability, while the Ultra 7’s LPDDR5X-only support and integrated Arc 140V graphics target thin-and-light mobile systems. The data indicates that the Xeon’s architecture prioritizes stability and multi-threaded integer throughput, while the Ultra 7’s architecture prioritizes efficiency, single-thread speed, and floating-point performance.