OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£1,280PassMark benchmark result:48937N. of physical cores:20CPU boost clock speed:5.2 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2114TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

9.0

Overall score

Score
9.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

90%

9.0

Technical score

10%

?

User score

★Better than 99% of processors
9.0

Technical score

Technical score
9.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

60%

9.4

Performance

18%

8.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

9.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.9

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated Graphics

★Better than 99% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £1,280

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX

Technical score
Technical score
9.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components:

60%

9.4

Performance

18%

8.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

9.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.9

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated Graphics

9.0
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 72% of models
Score components:

60%

9.0

Overall score

40%

3.8

Price

7.4
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2114
CPU socket
FCBGA2114
▼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA2114 CPU socket, which is older than that of 66% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Chipset
HM870, WM880
Chipset
HM870, WM880
▼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor supports HM870, WM880 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 62.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
20
N. of physical cores
20
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 20 CPU cores, which is more than 95.7% of processors and equal to 0.8% of processors.
CPU threads
20
CPU threads
20
▲ Better than 85% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 20 CPU threads, which is more than 85.3% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.2 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
5.2 GHz
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.2 GHz which is higher than that of 90.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.4 GHz & 12x 1.8 GHz
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.4 GHz & 12x 1.8 GHz
★ Better than 92% of models
This processor has a base clock of 8x2.4 GHz & 12x1.8 GHz which is higher than that of 92.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Semiconductor size
3 nm
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 96% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
★ Better than 96% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 96.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% of processors.
L3 cache
36 MB
L3 cache
36 MB
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 36 MB which is larger than that of 92.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
L2 cache
30 MB
L2 cache
30 MB
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 30 MB which is larger than that of 96.6% of processors.
L1 cache
1,408 KB
L1 cache
1,408 KB
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,408 KB which is larger than that of 92.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
DDR memory version
DDR5
▲ Better than 66% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to 8.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
▲ Better than 88% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 87.5% of processors and equal to 2.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 83.4% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU
▲ Better than 85% of models
This processor uses the Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 84.8% of processors and equal to that in 1.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
64
Integrated GPU execution units
64
▲ Better than 87% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 64 GPU execution units, which is more than 87.4% of processors and equal to 3.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
▼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
★ Better than 95% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 94.6% of processors and equal to 1.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
▼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 63.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Base power (PL1)
55 W
▼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 64% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
160 W
Boost power (PL2)
160 W
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 160 W which is higher than that of 91.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
▼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 2 W
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.63x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    48,937
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (48,937 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    48,937 vs 10,572.5
  • 3.58x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    17,264
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (17,264 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    17,264 vs 4,829
  • 14 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    20
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (20 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    20 vs 6
  • 9.54x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    26,622
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (26,622 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    26,622 vs 2,791
  • 83.2% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,581
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,581 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,581 vs 2,500
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Arrow Lake
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 12 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    20
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 12x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    30 MB
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (30 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    30 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, ADX
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, ADX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, ADX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 4.63x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    48,937
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (48,937 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    48,937 vs 10,572.5
  • 3.58x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    17,264
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (17,264 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    17,264 vs 4,829
  • 14 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    20
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (20 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    20 vs 6
  • 9.54x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    26,622
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (26,622 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    26,622 vs 2,791
  • 83.2% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,581
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,581 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,581 vs 2,500
  • 12 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    20
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 20.9% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.2 GHz
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    8 x 2.4 GHz & 12 x 1.8 GHz
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x2.4 GHz & 12x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    8x2.4 GHz & 12x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    Unlocked multiplier
    yes
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Arrow Lake
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 12x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    30 MB
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (30 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    30 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 6x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    3 MB/core
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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.
    E-core module: 4 MB shared
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 75% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 4.5x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    36 MB
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (36 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    36 MB vs 8 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    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
  • 3.67x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    1,408 KB
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1408 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,408 KB vs 384 KB
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 3.6x more transistors
    N. of transistors
    17.8 billion
    ▲ Better than 79% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    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
    PCIe version
    5.0
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    24
    ▲ Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 2.24x higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    102.4 GB/s
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (102.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 3x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    192 GB
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.18x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    6,400 MHz
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR5
    ▲ Better than 66% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR5-6400 MHz
    ▲ Better than 88% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 2.67x more GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    64
    ▲ Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    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 TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 2.67x higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    160 W
    ▼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (160 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    160 W vs 60 W
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 37.3% larger die size
    Die size
    243 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 5.12x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is more expensive than the average processor (£1,280 vs £250).
    £1,280 vs £250
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 22.2% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    55 W
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 5.12x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is more expensive than the average processor (£1,280 vs £250).
    £1,280 vs £250
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 20% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    6.4 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (6.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    6.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 37.3% larger die size
    Die size
    243 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 2.67x higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    160 W
    ▼ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (160 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    160 W vs 60 W
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • 22.2% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    55 W
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 22.2% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    55 W
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

I
igorslab.de
28/12/2024
Summary of the review
Igor'sLAB: Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX “Arrow Lake-HX” tested in Geekbench
L
laptopmedia.com
06/01/2025
Summary of the review
LaptopMedia: Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX - benchmark tests
C
cpubenchmark.net
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX - CPU Benchmarks
L
laptopmedia.com
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX - benchmark tests
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
PassMark Software
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX

  • High multi-core performance (20 cores/20 threads) suitable for intensive tasks like 3D design and video rendering
  • Strong single-core performance that benefits gaming, comparable to high-end Raptor Lake chips
  • Efficient power consumption during typical usage compared to previous high-end HX models
  • Includes an unlocked multiplier, making it easier for users to overclock
  • Integrated NPU (AI Boost) provides a performance boost for AI-accelerated tasks and modern workloads
  • Support for fast DDR5-6400 memory and high maximum capacity (up to 192GB-256GB)

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX

  • High power draw under extreme loads, reaching up to 160W peak TDP
  • Can run quite hot during heavy processing, though users note this is typical for high-end mobile CPUs
  • Poor battery life when used in high-performance gaming laptops, often requiring a charger to be nearby
  • Lacks AVX-512 support which may affect performance in specific professional calculation-heavy applications
  • Potential for thermal throttling if the laptop's cooling solution is not high-tier

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is a high-end mobile processor from the Arrow Lake-HX series, featuring 20 cores (8 Performance, 12 Efficiency) and 20 threads with a max turbo frequency of 5.2 GHz. Built on a 3nm process, it includes 30MB of L2 cache, 36MB of L3 cache, and a base TDP of 55W (scalable up to 160W), alongside a dedicated AI Boost NPU delivering 13 TOPS. Its main advantages include an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, excellent power efficiency compared to previous generations, and strong multi-threaded performance suitable for gaming and content creation. However, it lacks Hyper-Threading technology, and its integrated GPU is relatively modest with only four Xe cores, making it less ideal for demanding graphics tasks without a discrete card.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX and other processors

No results found