Intel Core Ultra 7 356H vs Intel Processor N250 Comparison

# The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is a high-performance mobile processor designed for demanding workloads, ranking in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 41,215 places it in a dead heat with the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, which scores 41,208, and just ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 41,263, a delta of -0.1%. The Core Ultra 7 356H also edges out the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, which scores 41,376 with a delta of -0.4%, and leads the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H by 0.6%, which scores 40,967.

The Intel Processor N250, by contrast, is a low-power entry-level part. It sits in the 50th percentile of all CPUs, and the database records no benchmark scores for it. Its average benchmark score is listed as zero, with no nearest rivals identified. This means the N250 is not a competitor to the Core Ultra 7 356H in any meaningful sense; it occupies a completely different performance class.

The data indicates that the Core Ultra 7 356H is the clear choice for anyone needing substantial multi-threaded and single-threaded compute in a mobile form factor. The N250 is suitable only for basic, low-intensity tasks where power draw is the primary concern. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the N250 outperforms the Core Ultra 7 356H, as the N250 has no recorded wins in any benchmark category.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, reflecting their different market positions. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, built on the Panther Lake architecture and codenamed Panther Lake. It uses a 3 nm process node manufactured by Intel itself. The processor has 16 cores and 16 threads, which is a high core count for a mobile part. Its base clock is 1.90 GHz, and it can boost up to 4.70 GHz. The thermal design power is rated at 25 watts, which is moderate for a high-performance laptop chip.

The Intel Processor N250 belongs to the Twin Lake architecture, codenamed Twin Lake, and is part of the Intel Processor generation listed as Alder Lake-N. It uses a 10 nm process node, also fabricated by Intel. The N250 has only 4 cores and 4 threads, a quarter of the Core Ultra 7 356H's configuration. Its base clock is listed as 0.10 GHz, with a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The thermal design power is just 6 watts, indicating an ultra-low-power design intended for fanless or very small devices.

The cache hierarchy also differs markedly. The Core Ultra 7 356H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The N250 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 356H's per-core L2 cache is particularly notable, as it provides a large private cache for each of its 16 cores.

Memory support further separates the two. The Core Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but uses a single-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of only 38.4 GB/s. This threefold difference in memory bandwidth is critical for many workloads, particularly those involving large data sets or memory-intensive computations.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the N250 uses UHD Graphics 730. Neither processor supports ECC memory. The PCIe capabilities are also distinct: the Core Ultra 7 356H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only), while the N250 offers Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 356H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, while the N250 uses the Intel BGA 1264 socket, so they are not interchangeable in any system.

The Core Ultra 7 356H was released in early 2026, according to the recorded date, while the N250 was released in early 2025. Both processors are listed as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors. However, the Core Ultra 7 356H has a comprehensive set of individual benchmark scores, while the N250 has none recorded. This absence of data for the N250 is itself informative: it indicates that the N250 has not been subjected to the same performance testing, likely because its target workloads are not benchmark-intensive.

Looking at the Core Ultra 7 356H's recorded scores, the multi-threaded performance is strong. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3,055 points. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 12,153 points. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 18,395 points. These results show a consistent scaling across Cinebench versions, with the R20 score roughly four times the R15 score and the R23 score roughly 1.5 times the R20 score, which is typical for the increasing workload demands of each newer version.

Single-threaded performance for the Core Ultra 7 356H is also robust. Cinebench R15 single-core yields 303 points, R20 single-core yields 1,715 points, and R23 single-core yields 2,040 points. The jump from R15 to R20 is substantial, while the R23 result is a more modest improvement over R20.

PassMark tests provide additional granularity. The Core Ultra 7 356H scores 33,6177 in data compression, 26,345 in data encryption, 27,898 in extended instructions, 327 in finding prime numbers, 103,128 in floating point math, 83,111 in integer math, 33,978 in multithread, 2,895 in physics, 40,990 in random string sorting, and 4,072 in single-thread tests. These numbers illustrate a balanced profile, with strong floating point and integer math performance, good encryption throughput, and solid single-thread capabilities.

The N250's lack of benchmark scores means there is no direct numerical comparison to draw. The database records zero wins for the N250 and zero wins for the Core Ultra 7 356H in head-to-head tests, simply because no such tests exist. The only comparative signal is the percentile ranking: the Core Ultra 7 356H at the 87th percentile versus the N250 at the 50th percentile. This is a large gap, indicating that the Core Ultra 7 356H outperforms a significant majority of CPUs in the database, while the N250 sits at the median.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor N250 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Core Ultra 7 356H boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the N250 boosts to 3.80 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Core Ultra 7 356H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The N250 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 7 356H has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. The N250 has 38.4 GB/s over a single-channel bus.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The Core Ultra 7 356H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The N250 uses the Intel BGA 1264 socket.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 7 356H has a TDP of 25 watts. The N250 has a TDP of 6 watts.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins across every metric where data exists. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide a massive advantage in multi-threaded workloads, as reflected in the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,395. The 4.70 GHz boost clock supports strong single-thread performance, evidenced by the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,040 and the PassMark single-thread score of 4,072. The dual-channel memory bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth enables high-throughput tasks like data compression, where it scores 336,177, and encryption, at 26,345. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 2.5 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample storage for frequently accessed data, reducing latency in compute-heavy applications.

The Intel Processor N250, with its 4 cores, 4 threads, and 6-watt TDP, is positioned for efficiency rather than performance. Its single-channel memory bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for basic productivity, web browsing, and lightweight media playback. The 3.80 GHz boost clock allows it to handle occasional bursts of activity without sustained high power draw. Its 6 MB of L3 cache and 2 MB of shared L2 cache are modest but adequate for its intended role. The N250's 10 nm process node is older than the Core Ultra 7 356H's 3 nm node, but the lower TDP means it can operate in thermally constrained environments where the 25-watt Core Ultra 7 356H would not be viable.

The use-case split is stark. The Core Ultra 7 356H is the appropriate choice for content creation, software compilation, scientific computing, and any workload that scales with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 87th percentile ranking indicates it outperforms nearly nine out of ten CPUs in the database, making it a high-end mobile processor. The N250, at the 50th percentile, is a median performer suitable for entry-level laptops, thin clients, and fanless designs. The absence of recorded benchmark scores for the N250 reinforces that it is not designed for demanding tasks; its role is to provide adequate performance at minimal power consumption.

In summary, the data shows a clear hierarchy. The Core Ultra 7 356H is a top-tier mobile processor with no recorded weaknesses in its benchmark profile. The N250 is a low-power part that, while active in production, has no recorded performance data and should be selected only when power efficiency is the overriding priority.