For the refresh of its Arrow Lake-based desktop processor range, Intel has released just two new chips: the brilliant Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and this one, the equally brilliant $199 Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Apologies for throwing in a review spoiler right at the start like that, but if you’ve already seen the score and the hardware specs, you won’t be surprised in the least bit.
Given its Ultra 5 name, it makes sense to directly compare the 250K Plus to the Core Ultra 5 245K, which was launched back in October 2024. While both processors sport six P-cores, Intel has added four more E-cores to the 250K Plus, for a total of 18 cores and 18 threads.
If that was the only change, you’d be forgiven for feeling a little disappointed. However, in my talks with Intel of late, the company has stressed that things are very different now, with new staff, new structures, and new ways of thinking and doing things. Which is why the 250K Plus also sports a raft of internal changes to lift it well clear of the 245K.
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus specs
(Image credit: Future)
Cores (P+E): 8+12Threads: 18Base clock: 4.2 GHz (P-core)Boost clock: 5.3 GHz (P-core)L3 Cache: 30 MBL2 Cache: 30 MB (Total)Unlocked: YesMax usable PCIe lanes: 24Graphics: Intel Graphics (4 Xe cores)Memory support (up to): DDR5-7200Processor Base Power (W): 125Maximum Package Power (W): 159Recommended customer price: $199/£199.99
The P-core boost clock has been raised by 100 MHz to 5.3 GHz, but the E-core boost clocks remain unchanged at 4.2 GHz. However, the Die-to-Die (D2D) clock has been significantly increased, from 2.1 to 3.0 GHz. This clock controls the links between all the tiles in the Arrow Lake processor, and a higher clock means less waiting for data to arrive.
Additionally, Intel has bumped the NGU clock for the fabric that links all the components inside the SoC tile (which is home to the memory controller), from 2.6 to 3.0 GHz, and it’s also given the cache memory ring clock a slight nudge: 100 MHz more, so that it runs at 3.9 GHz in the 250K Plus.
Along with a faster memory controller, which now supports DDR5-7200 without resorting to overclocking, you now have a Core Ultra 5 chip that isn’t massively different on the outside but is seriously quicker internally. And it’s not merely a hand-picked bunch of Arrow Lake chips with an overclock, as the compute tile is a fresh wafer design. You might think that this won’t make any difference, but the benchmark results tell you everything you need to know.
PC Gamer test PC specs
(Image credit: Future)
MSI MEG Z890 Ace | 32 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-6000 CL32 | Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE | Zotac GeForce RTX 4070 | Corsair MP700 2 TB | Be Quiet! Pure Power 12 M 850 W | Thermal Grizzly Der8enchtable
Gaming performance
&&
Gaming performance
< Prev
Cyberpunk 2077 (1080p RT Ultra + DLSS Balanced)
Next >Avg FPS1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus11893Intel Core Ultra 7 265K11790Intel Core Ultra 5 245K11584AMD Ryzen 7 9700X9959AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D11759AMD Ryzen 5 9600X10772037.575112.5150
Cyberpunk 2077 (1080p RT Ultra + DLSS Balanced) Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus118 Avg FPS, 93 1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 7 265K117 Avg FPS, 90 1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 5 245K115 Avg FPS, 84 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 7 9700X99 Avg FPS, 59 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D117 Avg FPS, 59 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 5 9600X107 Avg FPS, 72 1% Low FPSAvg FPS1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus10967Intel Core Ultra 7 265K10263Intel Core Ultra 5 245K10062AMD Ryzen 7 9700X9456AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D11751AMD Ryzen 5 9600X9264037.575112.5150
Baldur’s Gate 3 (1080p Ultra) Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus109 Avg FPS, 67 1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 7 265K102 Avg FPS, 63 1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 5 245K100 Avg FPS, 62 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 7 9700X94 Avg FPS, 56 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D117 Avg FPS, 51 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 5 9600X92 Avg FPS, 64 1% Low FPSAvg FPS1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus9856Intel Core Ultra 7 265K9553Intel Core Ultra 5 245K9353AMD Ryzen 7 9700X9149AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D9949AMD Ryzen 5 9600X81440255075100
Homeworld 3 (1080p Epic) Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus98 Avg FPS, 56 1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 7 265K95 Avg FPS, 53 1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 5 245K93 Avg FPS, 53 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 7 9700X91 Avg FPS, 49 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D99 Avg FPS, 49 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 5 9600X81 Avg FPS, 44 1% Low FPSAvg FPS1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus14579Intel Core Ultra 7 265K14278Intel Core Ultra 5 245K14578AMD Ryzen 7 9700X14677AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D15283AMD Ryzen 5 9600X14975050100150200
Metro Exodus Enhanced Ed. (1080p High) Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus145 Avg FPS, 79 1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 7 265K142 Avg FPS, 78 1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 5 245K145 Avg FPS, 78 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 7 9700X146 Avg FPS, 77 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D152 Avg FPS, 83 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 5 9600X149 Avg FPS, 75 1% Low FPSAvg FPS1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus174141Intel Core Ultra 7 265K174136.9Intel Core Ultra 5 245K174140AMD Ryzen 7 9700X15179AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D165143AMD Ryzen 5 9600X162135050100150200
Total War: Warhammer 3 (1080p High) Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus174 Avg FPS, 141 1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 7 265K174 Avg FPS, 136.9 1% Low FPSIntel Core Ultra 5 245K174 Avg FPS, 140 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 7 9700X151 Avg FPS, 79 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D165 Avg FPS, 143 1% Low FPSAMD Ryzen 5 9600X162 Avg FPS, 135 1% Low FPSCPU index scoreOverall index scoreIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus1998717567Intel Core Ultra 7 265K1882217377Intel Core Ultra 5 245K1560116935AMD Ryzen 7 9700X1323916437AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D938915780AMD Ryzen 5 9600X105611584805,00010,00015,00020,000
3DMark Time Spy Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus19987 CPU index score, 17567 Overall index scoreIntel Core Ultra 7 265K18822 CPU index score, 17377 Overall index scoreIntel Core Ultra 5 245K15601 CPU index score, 16935 Overall index scoreAMD Ryzen 7 9700X13239 CPU index score, 16437 Overall index scoreAMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D9389 CPU index score, 15780 Overall index scoreAMD Ryzen 5 9600X10561 CPU index score, 15848 Overall index score1 of 6
In some games, the 250K Plus is no better than the 245K, but it’s also no worse than the Core Ultra 7 265K. In Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition and Total War: Warhammer 3, there’s no appreciable difference between any of the Core Ultra chips, as a handful of frames per second isn’t going to be noticeable during gameplay.
The faster internals of the 250K Plus come to light in Homeworld 3 and Baldur’s Gate 3, and while you’re not seeing an enormous leap in performance for the former, just 5% here and there, Baldur’s Gate 3 ran 9% better on average, with 8% higher lows.
And then there’s Cyberpunk 2077. Compared to the 245K, the 250K Plus only achieves a 3% higher frame rate overall, but thanks to its faster internals and more L3 cache (by virtue of having an additional E-core cluster), the 1% lows are an impressive 11% higher. An AMD X3D chip is better, of course, but they cost a fair bit more than $199.
It’s worth noting that all of these figures were achieved with a top-end graphics card, pushing all of the game performance onto the CPU. The RTX 4070 is very much a mainstream card, and by the standards of what Intel’s processors support, DDR5-6000 isn’t especially fast, either.
What I’m getting at here is that you’ll see this kind of performance with ‘mere mortal’ hardware: there’s nothing special going on behind the scenes to make the 250K Plus this good in gaming, other than the fundamental architecture.
Content creation performance
&&
< Prev
Cinebench 2024
Next >Single-core index scoreMulti-core index scoreIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus1381817Intel Core Ultra 7 265K1351989Intel Core Ultra 5 245K1341471AMD Ryzen 7 9700X1311148AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D107810AMD Ryzen 5 9600X13391105001,0001,5002,000
Cinebench 2024 Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus138 Single-core index score, 1817 Multi-core index scoreIntel Core Ultra 7 265K135 Single-core index score, 1989 Multi-core index scoreIntel Core Ultra 5 245K134 Single-core index score, 1471 Multi-core index scoreAMD Ryzen 7 9700X131 Single-core index score, 1148 Multi-core index scoreAMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D107 Single-core index score, 810 Multi-core index scoreAMD Ryzen 5 9600X133 Single-core index score, 911 Multi-core index scoreIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus132Intel Core Ultra 7 265K146Intel Core Ultra 5 245K100AMD Ryzen 7 9700X93AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D62AMD Ryzen 5 9600X70037.575112.5150Samples per minute
Blender 4.2.0 Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus132Intel Core Ultra 7 265K146Intel Core Ultra 5 245K100AMD Ryzen 7 9700X93AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D62AMD Ryzen 5 9600X70Compressing (GIPS)Decompressing (GIPS)Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus147146Intel Core Ultra 7 265K159165Intel Core Ultra 5 245K123115AMD Ryzen 7 9700X112131AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D9398AMD Ryzen 5 9600X94101050100150200
7zip Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus147 Compressing (GIPS), 146 Decompressing (GIPS)Intel Core Ultra 7 265K159 Compressing (GIPS), 165 Decompressing (GIPS)Intel Core Ultra 5 245K123 Compressing (GIPS), 115 Decompressing (GIPS)AMD Ryzen 7 9700X112 Compressing (GIPS), 131 Decompressing (GIPS)AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D93 Compressing (GIPS), 98 Decompressing (GIPS)AMD Ryzen 5 9600X94 Compressing (GIPS), 101 Decompressing (GIPS)Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus101Intel Core Ultra 7 265K115Intel Core Ultra 5 245K85AMD Ryzen 7 9700X83AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D57AMD Ryzen 5 9600X66037.575112.5150UHD > 1080p60 (fps)
Handbrake 1.8.1 Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus101Intel Core Ultra 7 265K115Intel Core Ultra 5 245K85AMD Ryzen 7 9700X83AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D57AMD Ryzen 5 9600X661 of 4
Where things really stand out are in the content creation tests. If you use your PC for more than just gaming, you’ll be pleased by the 250K Plus’ single-core performance, and thanks to its support for 18 threads, you won’t be disappointed in the least bit by how well it handles multithreaded workloads.
For photo and video editing, code compiling and offline rendering, the little 250K Plus is genuinely very good. In anything heavily multithreaded, there’s nothing to touch it in this price bracket: not from Intel, not from AMD.
Power and thermals
&&
Power and thermal performance
< Prev
Average power consumption in Baldur’s Gate 3
Next >Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus91Intel Core Ultra 7 265K94Intel Core Ultra 5 245K83AMD Ryzen 7 9700X75AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D68AMD Ryzen 5 9600X860255075100Avg package power (W)
Average power consumption in Baldur’s Gate 3 Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus91Intel Core Ultra 7 265K94Intel Core Ultra 5 245K83AMD Ryzen 7 9700X75AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D68AMD Ryzen 5 9600X86Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus57Intel Core Ultra 7 265K57Intel Core Ultra 5 245K56AMD Ryzen 7 9700X57AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D55AMD Ryzen 5 9600X59015304560Avg CPU temp (°C)
Average CPU package temperature in Baldur’s Gate 3 Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus57Intel Core Ultra 7 265K57Intel Core Ultra 5 245K56AMD Ryzen 7 9700X57AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D55AMD Ryzen 5 9600X59Avg package power (W)Peak package power (W)Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus140170Intel Core Ultra 7 265K213245Intel Core Ultra 5 245K138154AMD Ryzen 7 9700X8788AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D66AMD Ryzen 5 9600X87075150225300
CPU power consumption in Cinebench 2024 multicore Data
ProductValueIntel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus140 Avg package power (W), 170 Peak package power (W)Intel Core Ultra 7 265K213 Avg package power (W), 245 Peak package power (W)Intel Core Ultra 5 245K138 Avg package power (W), 154 Peak package power (W)AMD Ryzen 7 9700X87 Avg package power (W), 88 Peak package power (W)AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D66AMD Ryzen 5 9600X871 of 3
The downside to all this extra performance is that the Core Ultra 2 250K Plus requires more power than the 245K. In Baldur’s Gate 3, it’s only an additional eight watts (91 vs 83 W), which is nothing to worry about, and a mere two watts more in the Cinebench multicore test, on average.
However, the 250K Plus hits a peak of 170 W in the latter benchmark, albeit only briefly, whereas the 245K always stays under its 159 W limit. The good news is that none of the power levels reached are enough to stress a simple air cooler, and where you’d preferably want to use a big AIO liquid cooler with the 270K Plus, a $40 air system is more than enough to keep temperatures under 70 degrees Celsius.
Overall verdict
(Image credit: Future)
Right at the top of this review, I’ve said Intel’s new chip offers “Ultra 7 class performance for an Ultra 3 class price tag,” and while there is a touch of hyperbole to that statement (the 250K isn’t quite as good as the 265K in content creation), it’s not far off the mark, as shown by my test results.
It’s arguably a better processor than AMD’s Ryzen 5 9600X, both in terms of outright performance and value-for-money, and it’s a more rounded/useful product than the Core Ultra 5 245K. Sure, you can pick up a Ryzen 5 9600X for $183 at Amazon, at the time of writing, but for an extra $16, you’re getting a lot more for a handful of bucks. Compared to the Ryzen 7 9700X, which is $75 more expensive than the 250K Plus, it looks like a must-buy, right?
Well, perhaps not in some cases, and definitely not in others. Starting with the former, while $199 is extremely competitive, you can buy the Core Ultra 7 265K for around $260-270, at the time of writing. It’s not as good as the new chip in gaming, but it does handle content creation tasks better, thanks to having two more P-cores.
(Image credit: Future)
If that’s important to you, it’s worth paying the extra for the 265K or perhaps splashing out even more for the superb Core Ultra 7 270K Plus.
What’s most likely to put a lot of PC enthusiasts off from grabbing a 250K Plus for a new build is the fact that these Arrow Lake Refresh chips are likely to be the last we’ll see from Intel for its LGA 1851 socket. This has always been the case with Intel processors, where its platforms only support a handful of CPU generations, unlike AMD’s AM4 and AM5 sockets, which seemingly support everything (especially the former) churned out by Team Red.
So, if you’re the kind of PC gamer who likes to buy a motherboard and keep it for many years, upgrading the CPU when funds permit, then you’d be better off going down the AM5 route. On the other hand, if you’re like me—use the same processor and board for years, swapping them both when upgrading—then the dead-end nature of the LGA 1851 socket won’t matter so much.
And if that’s the case, getting an 18-core, 18-thread processor for $199 instead of a six-core, 12-thread or an eight-core, 16-thread chip makes an awful lot of sense.
From PCGamer latest via this RSS feed