Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
Short of the retail-locked Ryzen 5 7600X3D, there hasn’t been a ton of compelling gaming CPUs around $200 over the past few generations. Intel bided its time with the Core i5-13400 family with Raptor Lake, and AMD stuck with a tried and true six-core configuration that we’ve had since the early days of Zen. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is something different, and it’s important to set the right context before discussing it.
Although this is Intel’s main Core Ultra 5, along the lines of a Core i5-14600K, it isn’t priced like one. It’s priced like the lower-tier Core Ultra 5 we see each generation, be it the Core i5-14400 or the newer Core Ultra 5 225. It is important to keep that in mind because, although the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is only marginally faster than the Core i5-14600K, it’s also much cheaper, both when looking at the list price and the current sale price of the Core i5-14600K.
We tested at 1080p with an RTX 5090 FE to remove any potential GPU bottlenecks. In all of the games we test, we use a combination of High and Ultra settings. Performance will vary with lesser cards and varying fidelity settings. You can find a full breakdown of our test benches at the end of this review.
The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is just 1% faster than its main competition from AMD, the Ryzen 5 9600X. Compared to the Core Ultra 5 245K, it’s 9% faster, which is slightly below the 13% jump Intel claimed. Part of that is a consequence of our test suite, where we include a few more recent games that show less aggressive scaling with different CPUs. Compared to the Ryzen 5 7600X3D, Intel is 9% behind, but once again, you can only buy that chip for $200 in-store at a Micro Center. Online, you’ll easily spend over $250 through third-party sellers.
Although Intel isn’t claiming any dominating lead with the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, it is offering competitive performance, especially at this price. It’d be one thing if the Ryzen 5 9600X and Core Ultra 5 250K Plus were on par in games and apps, but they’re not. Intel is matching AMD in games while offering far higher application performance, particularly in apps that can leverage its large core array.
Compared to the $300 Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, the 250K Plus offers 95% of the gaming performance while cutting a third off the price. It’s a similar dynamic we’ve seen in the past with Core Ultra 7 and Core Ultra 9, with the former offering very close gaming performance for far less money. Here, however, that window has moved down to more aggressive prices.





Outside of frame rates, you can see in our other geomeans that Intel certainly bumped the power of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. It consumed 22% more power in games compared to the 245K, but still managed to undercut the Ryzen 5 9600X and 7600X by a few watts. It’s less efficient than the Core Ultra 5 245K, but still manages to beat AMD’s competition. Of course, the X3D offerings run away with efficiency, far outclassing everything else in performance per watt.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Interestingly, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus maintained far higher clocks than the 245K, averaging out about 300 MHz ahead. Intel only minorly bumped turbo speeds on the 250K Plus, but the chip can clearly maintain those higher clock speeds in workloads like gaming. On the temperature front, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus ran shockingly cool under load, managing to shave three degrees off the 245K despite drawing more power.
For our tests, we turned iBOT on. We didn’t include specific games just because they have iBOT support, nor did we exclude others. This is the suite of games we’d use for any CPU review right now. Four of the games in our pool have iBOT optimizations, and we’ll call them out in the individual benchmarks below.
A Plague Tale: Requiem Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Starting with A Plague Tale Requiem, the 245K occupies the bottom of our test pool. With the 250K Plus, Intel manages to come within a point of the Ryzen 5 9600X. Intel boosted performance in this game by a respectable 11.5% compared to the 245K, without any assistance from iBOT.
Baldur’s Gate 3 Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Although Intel trailed in A Plague Tale: Requiem, it leads in Baldur’s Gate 3. The 250K Plus manages an 8.7% jump over the 245K, as well as a slight 4.4% increase compared to the Ryzen 5 9600X. More impressive is that the 250K Plus is within 2% of the 270K Plus. This game loves AMD’s X3D chips, however, allowing the Ryzen 5 7600X3D to claim a 19% lead over the 250K Plus.
Counter-Strike 2 Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Counter-Strike 2 was one of the weaker games for Arrow Lake, and although there are solid leads with Intel’s refresh, Team Blue is still behind. The 250K Plus manages an impressive 17% lead over the 245K, even outclassing the 265K. Even with such a large jump, the 250K Plus is 4% behind the Ryzen 5 9600X and 7% behind the Ryzen 5 7600X3D.
Cyberpunk 2077 Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Cyberpunk 2077 has iBOT optimizations, helping Intel claim a lead in a game that it was previously competitive in. The 250K Plus is about 10% ahead of both the 245K and 9600X, and 4.7% behind the Ryzen 5 7600X3D. It also manages a marginal improvement over the Core i5-14600K, Ryzen 7 9700X, and Core Ultra 7 265K, punching above its price range.
Doom: The Dark Ages Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Doom: The Dark Ages has a performance wall around 200 FPS where CPUs stop scaling, as evidenced by the fact that the Ryzen 7 9800X3D and Core Ultra 7 270K Plus are tied – though, with the former carrying much better 1% lows. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is able to hang with the top dogs, improving on the 245K by 4.7% and outclassing the 9600X by 12%. It even manages a solid lead over the Ryzen 5 7600X3D.
F1 24 Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Arrow Lake CPUs broadly struggle in F1 24, and that includes the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Intel is offering a decent bump of 4.8% over the 245K here, but otherwise, the 250K Plus can’t even match the last-gen Ryzen 7 7600X. The Ryzen 5 9600X is 15.5% ahead, while the Ryzen 5 7600X3D is nearly 36% ahead.
Far Cry 6 Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Far Cry 6 is another game with iBOT optimizations, and a game that Intel previously struggled with. With iBOT and Arrow Lake Refresh, Intel returns to a competitive position. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus improves upon the 245K by 20%, matching the Ryzen 5 9600X and beating the Core i5-14600K by 5.1%.
Final Fantasy XIV Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Final Fantasy XIV also has iBOT optimizations that push Intel into a more competitive position, though to a lesser degree than Far Cry 6. Despite nearly a 22% jump compared to the 245K, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 9.6% behind the Ryzen 5 9600X and a staggering 30% behind the Ryzen 5 7600X3D.
Flight Simulator 2024 Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Flight Simulator 2024 flips the script, with the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus now leading both the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 5 7600X3D, and doing so without any iBOT assistance. Compared to the 245K, the 250K Plus offers an 8% performance jump.
Hitman 3 Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Hitman 3 is the only game we tested where the 24-core Core Ultra 7 270K Plus shows a clear advantage over the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, perhaps due to its larger cache pool. With iBOT, the 250K Plus offers a 5.5% jump over the 245K and a similar lead compared to the Ryzen 5 9600X.
Hogwarts Legacy Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Hogwarts Legacy has access to iBOT optimizations, allowing the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus to claim a high-level position in our test pool. It’s 18.5% ahead of the 245K, 11.4% ahead of the 9600X, and even 6.7% ahead of the 7600X3D. It manages to marginally outperform the Ryzen 7 7800X3D.
Minecraft RTX Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





In Marvel’s Spider-Man 2, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus doesn’t improve on the base 245K at all, which is surprising given the jump we can see from the 265K to the 270K Plus. Still, Intel was previously competitive in this game against AMD, and it’s maintaining that position with the 250K Plus.
Monster Hunter Wilds Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Oblivion Remastered Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Starfield Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Starfield struggles on AMD’s six-core parts, which allowed Intel to earn a lead over the Ryzen 5 9600X with the Core Ultra 5 245K. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus furthers that lead, placing 17% ahead of the 9600X and falling just a few frames shy of the Ryzen 5 7600X3D.
The Last of Us Part One Benchmarks – Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus





Rounding out our gaming benchmarks is The Last of Us Part One. Previously, the Core Ultra 5 245K was competitive with the 7600X3D and 9600X, but the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus allows Intel to claim a firm win.
- MORE: Best CPU for gaming
- MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
- MORE: Intel vs AMD
- MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
Current page: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus gaming benchmarks
Prev Page A True Value Champ Next Page Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Productivity Benchmarks
Jake Roach is the Senior CPU Analyst at Tom’s Hardware, writing reviews, news, and features about the latest consumer and workstation processors.
-
Notton I really like the cost performance on the i5 250K. It should kick AMD right in the nose.Reply
Now if only 32GB of RAM didn't cost $600... -
dmitche31958 Reply
I agree. I'm not a dead in my seat gamer and productivity is far more important than squeezing a few FPS which most people can not notice, same as 4K TVs.Notton said:I really like the cost performance on the i5 250K. It should kick AMD right in the nose.
Now if only 32GB of RAM didn't cost $600...
Most people don't care about the soon to be outdated forms as like me we don't update with every new iteration. I'll update every 5-8 years and only when I see a need to and not when I want to feel the need to have the coolest and newest shiny object on the street. -
Gururu Fair analysis captures sentiment of theReply
99% of consumer base, including corporate, only cares that the platform is supported. The amount of users that upgrade a CPU is about as much as the dGPU market share held by Intel.dmitche31958 said:I agree. I'm not a dead in my seat gamer and productivity is far more important than squeezing a few FPS which most people can not notice, same as 4K TVs.
Most people don't care about the soon to be outdated forms as like me we don't update with every new iteration. I'll update every 5-8 years and only when I see a need to and not when I want to feel the need to have the coolest and newest shiny object on the street. -
usertests Good overall. I'd like to see it in some cheap OEM PCs, but I'll be keeping an eye on Nova Lake-S's iGPU.Reply
There is a 250KF that removes the iGPU for a $15 discount.
Could the crazy idle power consumption that edges out the 270K here be explained by the higher base clocks? That and the D2D clock, of course. -
thestryker Reply
No it's definitely not as they all drop much lower than that on idle (base clocks are simply minimum clock speed under load). There's something else happening here as going through other reviews I'm not seeing significantly higher power numbers on 250K/270K parts. 200S Boost and using high speed memory can certainly play a part, but it would be reflected in the ARL-S parts too. While I doubt it perhaps even something with the updated APO/iBOT if it's running.usertests said:Could the crazy idle power consumption that edges out the 270K here be explained by the higher base clocks?
The GPU portion will be no faster, and might even be slower, than ARL-S given it'll be 2 Xe3 cores versus 4 Xe cores.usertests said:I'll be keeping an eye on Nova Lake-S's iGPU. -
patriotpa NICE CPU. A word of warning though.....Reply
Geekbench6 site is flagging ALL 250K 270K and 290K benchmarks invalid with the following:
"This benchmark result may be invalid due to binary modification tools that can run on this system."
I wonder what skin they have in the game or who's paying them. -
thestryker Reply
This is about iBOT. I'm guessing they're considering it to be "cheating" and cannot detect whether or not it's running. Of course given what a joke of a benchmark geekbench is that's pretty rich.patriotpa said:"This benchmark result may be invalid due to binary modification tools that can run on this system."
I wonder what skin they have in the game or who's paying them. -
dalauder This name sounds a lot like the legendary processor, the i5-2500K. That's probably the oldest midrange processor that would still make a computer feel normal in ordinary daily tasks.Reply -
VizzieTheViz If you’re like nearly everyone and haven’t ever upgraded a cpu in a pc and don’t have any intention to then this is a really good cpu at this price.Reply
I was kind of miffed in the past at Intel for having no upgrade for my 6700K ever, but honestly it did pretty well until I replaced it with a 9800X3D last year (when prices were still somewhat sane on al parts) and it’s still doing well running emulators and streaming video for the kids.
You can get a lot of value out of a pc with this cpu even if it is on a dead end platform (which all Intel platforms mostly were, usually there were only two generations on an a socket with Intel as i remember it). -
_EBN_ ReplyVizzieTheViz said:If you’re like nearly everyone and haven’t ever upgraded a cpu in a pc and don’t have any intention to then this is a really good cpu at this price.
I was kind of miffed in the past at Intel for having no upgrade for my 6700K ever, but honestly it did pretty well until I replaced it with a 9800X3D last year (when prices were still somewhat sane on al parts) and it’s still doing well running emulators and streaming video for the kids.
You can get a lot of value out of a pc with this cpu even if it is on a dead end platform (which all Intel platforms mostly were, usually there were only two generations on an a socket with Intel as i remember it).
Solid CPU for low price indeed! At the start of the year i built new system and came from ancient i5 4670k with DDR3 jumping to CU5 245KF which as you can imagine was what someone would call an real upgrade, hah! I timed the purchase just right around black friday and made some further savings with cpu (-50€ less than R5 9600X), M.2 ssd, GPU etc. which balanced the nasty DDR5 pricing.
The dead end platform thing is bit tiring to hear as there is ton of folks who keeps the system longer than 5 years especially those who enjoys older games and eSport titles more. So for me going with AMD would not changed anything as i know i will be keeping this probably until DDR7 hits the market. Also as i`m playing with 1080P resolution using fairly affordable GPU RX9060 XT 16GB (slightly faster than RTX 5060) the speed differences with faster CPU seems to be very small as we can see below using BF5. I spent little bit extra for the GPU to have that 16GB card for future proofing so i´m sorted for long time. Came from GTX 1060 3GB. :sweatsmile:
I got to say this 245KF similar to 250K/KF runs cool, quiet and draws small amount of juice at idle which is only positive as the computer is kept on long times and the electricity pricing in Europe is only going up thanks to these f**** data centers which they are building in the coming years. Long story short i`m really happy to see that Intel gets some love after so much s*it toward them!
https://ibb.co/pBddV9MR
https://ibb.co/q6SpH7K