OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core Ultra 7 258V review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£950PassMark multi-core score:18930N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2833TDP (Thermal design power):17 W

Intel Core Ultra 7 258V Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 8 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.6/10

Overall score

Score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 82% of models
Score components

40%

7.4

Technical score

25%

8.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 82% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

5.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
7.4

Technical score

Technical score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 76% of models
Score components

60%

7.2

Performance

18%

8.1

Architecture

10%

6.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 76%
8.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 83% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.5

Popularity

Grades by review (8)
3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 83%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 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 25% 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 (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £950
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V

Based on 3 · 6

Outstanding battery life and a light design win praise, but CPU performance and limited memory upgrades disappoint.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 7 258V

Technical score
Technical score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 76% of models
Score components:

60%

7.2

Performance

18%

8.1

Architecture

10%

6.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

7.4
Reviews score
8.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components:

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

5.5

Price

7.0
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2833
This processor uses the FCBGA2833 CPU socket, which is older than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES, AMX
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES, AMX instruction sets, which is narrower support than 70.6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.8 GHz which is higher than that of 69.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.7 GHz & 4x 2.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.7 GHz & 4x2.2 GHz which is higher than that of 72.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
18,930
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 18,930 in PassMark, which is higher than 66.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 95.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L2 cache
14 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 14 MB which is larger than that of 86.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 88.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
8,533 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 8,533 MHz, which is higher than that of 98% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8533 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-8533 MHz, which is higher than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 1.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Graphics 140V
This processor uses the Intel Arc Graphics 140V integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 87.1% of processors and equal to that in 0.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
600 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 600 MHz which is higher than that of 79.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), VVC (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), VVC (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 99.3% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
17 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 17 W which is lower than that of 77.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
17 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 17 W which is lower than that of 76.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
37 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 37 W which is lower than that of 75% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core Ultra 7 258V vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 57.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,031 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,031 vs 2,558
  • 78.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,745 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,745 vs 1,535
  • 84.3% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,599 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,599 vs 5,209
  • 5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 4.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    14 MB vs 3 MB
  • 65.1% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,930 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,930 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 22.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 83% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 6.7
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    September 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 57.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,031 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,031 vs 2,558
  • 78.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,745 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,745 vs 1,535
  • 84.3% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,599 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,599 vs 5,209
  • 65.1% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,930 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,930 vs 11,469
  • 9.1% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x3.7 GHz & 4x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x3.7 GHz & 4x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Boost Max 3
    3 vs 2
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 4.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    14 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 21.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (139 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    139 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2.67x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8,533 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    8,533 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 2.9x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (136 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    136 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-8533 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-8533 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Graphics 140V vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Graphics 140V vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 71.4% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (600 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    600 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 62.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (17 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    17 W vs 45 W
  • 42.2% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (37 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    37 W vs 64 W
  • 62.2% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (17 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    17 W vs 45 W
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 3.8x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is more expensive than the average processor (£950 vs £250).
    £950 vs £250
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • 4.7% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 7 258V has worse value for money than the average processor (6.96 vs 7.3).
    6.96 vs 7.29
  • 6 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    22 vs 28
  • 3.8x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is more expensive than the average processor (£950 vs £250).
    £950 vs £250
  • 4.7% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 7 258V has worse value for money than the average processor (6.96 vs 7.3).
    6.96 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 6 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    22 vs 28
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB

Video reviews

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

9.0
Yousuf Vilayat
≈ estimated
01/02/2025
Hands-on review · performance, battery and video editing tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is a solid compact laptop for students and office work, but not for gaming or heavy GPU tasks.
8.0
TechniQualities
≈ estimated
03/10/2024
Hands-on review · performance, battery and cooling tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is not a performance champion, but a thin, efficient laptop well suited to office and travel use.
7.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
25/09/2024
Benchmark comparison · iGPU gaming tests vs Ryzen Z1 Extreme
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 7 258V trades blows with the Ryzen Z1 Extreme, a clear step up from first-generation Core Ultra graphics.
9.0
Hardware Canucks
≈ estimated
24/09/2024
Hands-on review · benchmarks, battery life and gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 7 258V offers excellent battery life and graphics at low power, but weaker multi-threaded performance is a clear trade-off.
9.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
24/09/2024
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming and battery tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is a very efficient chip with good 1080p gaming and strong battery life, though its RAM is soldered and cannot be upgraded.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Shop video
Brand video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
guru3d.com
✓ explicit
10/12/2024
Laptop review · Battery life
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is a low-power chip for thin laptops like the Zenbook S14, trading some raw speed for longer battery life.
8.0
arstechnica.com
≈ estimated
25/09/2024
Analysis · Lunar Lake laptops
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V offers much better battery life and Copilot+ readiness, but its speed is only reasonable, and it is made outside Intel's factories.
7.0
pcworld.com
≈ estimated
24/09/2024
Lab test · Battery and speed
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V suits long days away from a charger and playing older games, but trails AMD's Ryzen AI 300 in most speed tests.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core Ultra 7 258V

  • Exceptional power efficiency, often cited as Intel's most efficient x86 chip to date
  • Titanic battery life in thin-and-light laptops, reaching up to 16 hours in local video playback tests
  • Phenomenal integrated graphics (Arc 140V) that can handle modern games at 1080p with respectable frame rates
  • Strong single-core performance, making it highly responsive for everyday productivity and coding
  • Runs remarkably cool and quiet, with fans rarely ramping up under average workloads
  • Broad software and game compatibility inherent to the x86 architecture compared to ARM alternatives

What customers don't like about Intel Core Ultra 7 258V

  • Mediocre multi-threaded performance due to the lack of Hyper-Threading and a low core count (8 cores/8 threads)
  • Soldered, on-package RAM (32GB) means the memory is not upgradable after purchase
  • Performance can drop significantly when running on battery compared to some competitors
  • GPU driver stability issues have been noted, including occasional crashes or fluctuating frame rates in some games
  • AI-driven features (NPU) can sometimes be inconsistent, such as misidentifying shadows or activating unrequested functions
  • Early Linux support may be limited or require specific kernel versions (6.12+) for full compatibility

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is a high-efficiency Lunar Lake processor featuring an 8-core, 8-thread architecture with 4 Lion Cove performance cores (up to 4.8 GHz) and 4 Skymont efficient cores (up to 3.7 GHz). Key characteristics include 32GB of integrated LPDDR5x-8533 memory, a 47 TOPS NPU for AI acceleration, and the Arc 140V iGPU with 8 Xe-cores for solid integrated graphics performance. Its main pros are exceptional power efficiency with a 17W base TDP, leading to long battery life in thin-and-light laptops, and strong single-core performance. However, cons include the lack of hyper-threading, a relatively low thread count compared to previous generations, and RAM that is soldered directly to the package, making it non-upgradable.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 7 258V 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 258V and other processors

No results found