OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£200PassMark multi-core score:51383N. of physical cores:18CPU boost clock speed:5.3 GHzCPU socket:LGA1851TDP (Thermal design power):125 W

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Review: Compare 168 technical specifications, 12 expert and video reviews and 26 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

8.7/10

★Better than 99% of processors

8.9

★Better than 99%

8.7

★Better than 97%

8.6

★Better than 96%

9.1

▲Better than 66%

9.7

★Better than 99%

8.3
Gaming
Gaming
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
10
PassMark single-core score
25.0%
?
Geekbench 6 single-core score
20.0%
9.0
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
3.8
L3 cache
8.0%
10
N. of physical cores
8.2
Video editing
Video editing
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
?
Geekbench 6 multi-core score
20.0%
10
N. of physical cores
20.0%
10
CPU threads
15.0%
3.8
L3 cache

Best prices

N/A~ £200

Best rankings

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

8.7

Show more

Hide

Platform

8.3

Show more

Hide

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

Z890, B860, H810

CPU architecture

Instruction sets

Show more

What reviewers say

Performance

9.1

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

6x 4.2 GHz & 12x 3.3 GHz

PassMark multi-core score

Show more

What reviewers say

Architecture

8.4

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

?

Show more

Memory & PCIe

9.6

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

DDR5-7200 MHz

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

?

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

What reviewers say

Integrated graphics

8.6

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

Intel Xe Graphics 64EU

Integrated GPU execution units

Integrated GPU base frequency

Integrated media encoders/decoders

Show more

Power & Thermal

4.6

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

Tau (power duration limit)

?

Configurable TDP

?

Show more

What reviewers say

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

4.48x higher PassMark score
This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (51,383 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
51,383 vs 11,469
12 more CPU cores
This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (18 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
18 vs 6
85.6% better single-core performance
This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,747 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
4,747 vs 2,558
More advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
4.29x better multi-core performance
This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (12,035 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
12,035 vs 2,804.5
20.5% higher boost clock
This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
5.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
10 more CPU threads
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (18 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
18 vs 8
10x larger L2 cache
This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (30 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
30 MB vs 3 MB

28.4% higher review score
Reviews score
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 96% of models
80%
8.5
Average grade
20%
8.9
Popularity
Grades by review (12)
6 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
8.6 vs 6.7
24.4% higher list score
List score
9.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (26)
List score: in 26 of 51 lists (51%)
9.7 vs 7.8
24.7% higher user score
User score
9.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 66% of models
80%
9.5
Rating
20%
7.7
Popularity
9.1 vs 7.3
21.7% better value for money
Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has better value for money than the average processor (8.92 vs 7.3).
8.92 vs 7.33

Modern CPU socket
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1851 vs FP5).
LGA1851 vs FP5
6 years newer release date
This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2026 vs 2020).
2026 vs 2020
Supports heterogeneous scheduling
This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.

4.48x higher PassMark score
This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (51,383 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
51,383 vs 11,469
12 more CPU cores
This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (18 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
18 vs 6
85.6% better single-core performance
This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,747 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
4,747 vs 2,558
4.29x better multi-core performance
This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (12,035 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
12,035 vs 2,804.5
20.5% higher boost clock
This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
5.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
10 more CPU threads
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (18 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
18 vs 8
73.7% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (851 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
851 vs 490
Unlocked for overclocking
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
2 more performance cores
This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
6 vs 4
14 higher clock multiplier
This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (42 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
42 vs 28

More advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
10x larger L2 cache
This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (30 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
30 MB vs 3 MB
6x more L2 per core
This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
75% smaller process node
This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
3 nm vs 12 nm
More advanced foundry
This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm
Mixed big and small cores
This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
3.33x larger L3 cache
This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (30 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
30 MB vs 9 MB
3.6x more transistors
This processor has more transistors than the average processor (17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion

Newer PCIe version
This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
8 more PCIe lanes
This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
24 vs 16
4x more memory capacity
This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
256 GB vs 64 GB
2.46x higher memory bandwidth
This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (115.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
115.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
2.25x higher memory speed
This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7200 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
7,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
Supports memory overclocking
This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
Newer DDR support
This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
DDR5 vs DDR4
Supports ECC memory
This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.

2.67x more GPU execution units
This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (64 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
64 vs 24
1 more supported displays
This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
4 vs 3

5 °C higher temperature limit
This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C

Why is Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

Lower base clock
This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (6x4.2 GHz & 12x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
6x4.2 GHz & 12x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
Narrower instruction support
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
2.78x higher base power
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
125 W vs 45 W
2.48x higher boost power
This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (159 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
159 W vs 64 W
No simultaneous multithreading
This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
Lower JEDEC memory speed
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-7200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR5-7,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
2.78x higher TDP
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
125 W vs 45 W
Inferior integrated GPU
This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel Xe Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
Intel Xe Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

Narrower instruction support
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
More limited crypto acceleration
This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
AES vs AES, SHA

Lower base clock
This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (6x4.2 GHz & 12x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
6x4.2 GHz & 12x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
No simultaneous multithreading
This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.

Lower JEDEC memory speed
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-7200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR5-7,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
Limited PCIe bifurcation
This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4

Inferior integrated GPU
This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel Xe Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
Intel Xe Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
Narrower media codec support
This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

2.78x higher base power
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
125 W vs 45 W
2.48x higher boost power
This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (159 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
159 W vs 64 W
2.78x higher TDP
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
125 W vs 45 W
5 °C higher CPU temperature
This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.5

ImWateringPSUs

≈ estimated

20/05/2026

Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and value

Verdict

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is my current favorite CPU and an easy recommendation at its price.

9.0

Level1Techs

≈ estimated

11/04/2026

Build video · gaming benchmarks across resolutions and games

Verdict

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is surprisingly strong for gaming and a great deal at its price.

9.0

Level1Techs

≈ estimated

23/03/2026

Launch review · benchmarks and platform features

Verdict

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is great value for multi-core work, though the platform and memory push up build costs.

Hands-on video, no verdict

Overview video

Overview video

Shop video

Overview video

igorsLAB · 23/03/2026

Hands-on review · benchmarks, efficiency and platform outlook

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the most balanced pick in the mid-range, a solid refresh but not a major leap.

Likes

Best mix of performance, efficiency and price in the lineup
Clear gains over the direct predecessors
Strong performance in workstation and productivity tasks
Stable with 7200 MT/s memory in workstation use

Dislikes

Only a step within the mid-range class, not a major leap
AMD remains more efficient and the more stable long-term platform
Uncertain platform future, and the chip is stuck in the mid-range

Solo Gamer Chile · 25/03/2026

Review · gaming and productivity performance of both models

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is an attractive buy with excellent performance and competitive pricing, if prices stay near Intel's MSRP.

Likes

Strong gaming and productivity performance
Priced competitively against the previous generation
Good temperatures and power draw for the performance on offer
Support for faster 7200 MT/s memory

Dislikes

Value holds only if prices stay near the launch MSRP
Memory speed impact on performance not tested in this video

HACKTECHMX · 24/03/2026

Commentary review · benchmarks from other sources and value analysis

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the best processor at its price, strong for both gaming and productivity.

Likes

Strong value for entry, mid-range and high-end builds
Good gaming and productivity for its price
Low temperatures under load for an Intel chip

Dislikes

Platform may not last beyond the next Intel generation
Gaming trails pricier chips by a small margin

Profesional Review · 23/03/2026

Benchmark review · gaming, power and temperature tests

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus offers good value and balance, but it is not revolutionary and comes with heat and platform caveats.

Likes

Competitive price for the performance offered
Good gaming performance at 1440p and 4K
Many cores help with streaming and multitasking
Efficient power draw at idle

Dislikes

Runs hot under load and needs decent cooling
Falls short of the revolution the reviewer expected
Platform may be short-lived once the next Intel generation arrives

What reviewers agree on

Based on 6 · 7

Multi-core strength and good value win praise, but platform longevity and memory support worry reviewers, and gaming opinions are split.

Praised

Mixed views

Criticised

Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0

pcmag.com

✓ explicit

23/03/2026

I Tested Intel's New Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Desktop Chip. It

Hands-on test · Gaming and creative chip

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is an 18-core chip that handles multitasking and 1080p gaming well, though AMD's X3D chips still lead at low settings.

9.2

tech4gamers.com

✓ explicit

24/04/2026

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Review : Punching Above Its

Benchmark review · Desktop CPU

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a good mid-range chip for heavy multi-core work with 18 cores and easy cooling, but overclocking needs a Z890 board.

9.0

computerbase.de

≈ estimated

23/03/2026

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus und Core Ultra 7 270K Plus im Test

Lab test · Desktop processor

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus beats the older Core i9-14900K in games and has 18 cores, but official DDR5-7200 support requires CUDIMM modules.

9.0

profesionalreview.com

✓ explicit

23/03/2026

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Review en Español (Análisis

Hands-on test · Mid-range gaming chip

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores for gaming and multitasking, but it needs a high-end cooler and draws a lot of power.

9.6

geeknetic.es

✓ explicit

23/03/2026

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Review

Hands-on review · Chipset comparison

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus performs much like the Core Ultra 7 265K, with 18 cores, but full PCI Express 5.0 needs a Z890 board.

9.0

tuttotech.net

≈ estimated

24/04/2026

Recensione Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus: una CPU difficile da

Hands-on test · Multi-core performance

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a cool, efficient chip with fast multi-core speed, though it trails AMD's X3D chips in several games.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

18 cores and 18 threads keep several heavy programs running at once.
A 5.3 GHz boost clock keeps single tasks quick.
Memory runs up to 7200 MHz with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth.
The unlocked multiplier lets you change the clock speed yourself.
Integrated graphics with 64 execution units handles desktop work without a graphics card.
PCIe 5.0 with 24 lanes suits fast storage and graphics cards.

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

Base power of 125 W and boost of 159 W need a good cooler.
No cooler is included, so you need to buy one.
It has no multithreading, so each core runs one thread at a time.
It can reach 105 °C under heavy load.

Verdict

Looking for many threads in a mid-range chip? The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, with a boost clock of 5.3 GHz. Six performance cores handle the heavy work, and twelve smaller cores take on the background tasks. The chip has 30 MB of L2 and 30 MB of L3 cache, and memory runs up to 7200 MHz. Bandwidth reaches 115.2 GB/s, so data moves quickly between memory and the chip. It is unlocked, so you can change the clock speed yourself. The integrated graphics has 64 execution units, enough for everyday desktop tasks without a graphics card. The trade-off is power: 125 W base and 159 W at boost. It suits a buyer who needs many threads and already owns a good cooler.

Best alternatives

Intel Core i5-13600K

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 7700

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 9600X

Processors

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745

Processors

Intel Core i5-14600K

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 8700G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 8700F

Processors

Intel Core i5-12600K

Processors

Intel Core i5-11600K

Processors

Intel Core i5-14400

Processors

Intel Core i5-13600

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and other processors

No results found