The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is incredible value for money, but it won't matter if Intel doesn't follow through on its socket longevity promises

The momentum in the desktop CPU market has been going all AMD's way for years now, and while that's down to AMD for making the right choices, it's also been due to multiple missteps by Intel. I don't want to speak too soon, but Intel feels like it's turned over a new leaf in 2026, to the point where the competition could be about to get very fierce. Even the way Team Blue is getting its messaging across has shifted. AI is so far from its desktop CPU conversation; gamers are a priority, and there's been a brilliant refocusing on value for money. As someone who's really interested in the best CPU market, I'm daring to hope, but there's a lot still to prove.

I'm sure I don't need to fill you in on the PR and consumer nightmare that was the Raptor Lake refresh issues. I'm sure I don't need to talk to you about Intel's longstanding reluctance to support its motherboard sockets compared to AMD. And even if you didn't hear about the lacklustre price-to-performance of the first batch of Core Ultra CPUs at their launch, I'm sure you've been hesitant to grab one because of all the noise AMD's been making.

Intel's course correcting with two new flagship desktop processors this year. It's not calling them flagship products because neither of them has the number 9 in their name, but I'm calling them flagship because their reasonable price tags and refreshed attitude toward gamers feels like a statement of intent for where the brand wants to go. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus stands as a budget option at $199 / £199, but its specs, performance, and remedies of past Intel CPU generations are nowhere close to the "budget" end of the scale.

Latest Videos From

Watch full video here:

Specs & Features

So, after one thoroughly whelming generation of processors on the LGA 1851 motherboard socket, we really weren't sure whether a follow-up was going to arrive. Rumors swirled that Intel was already finished with it before the Plus variants were announced. By all accounts, it looked ready to move straight onto the next "Lake". Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and we've seen this latest refreshed generation use the same motherboard socket as 2024. Intel now claims it's planning AMD-style support and longevity for its platforms, including Raptor Lake, but in a PC market this volatile due to AI-induced RAMflation, it all remains to be seen.

In other words, Intel has a lot of good faith to build up with consumers again. I certainly hope we see this platform get support into the future, because as I'll come onto, there's some really strong performance to be unlocked from it. I want to believe that Intel has turned a new leaf, but it's going to have to back up the talk with action if it wants to become the trusted CPU maker AMD has become known as.

It's certainly going to be hard to argue with a decade of AM4 support.

All of that is to say that the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the same motherboard socket as the original batch of Core Ultra products, but it's not one you can upgrade to if you have an Intel 12th, 13th, or 14th generation CPU/motherboard.

The 250K Plus might feel like a successor in name to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, but its specs land it somewhere between last gen's Ultra 5 and Intel Core Ultra 7 265K. It has 18 cores and 18 threads with a 5.3Ghz boost clock. That's up from last gen's Ultra 5 at 14 cores and threads at 5.2GHz, but just under the 265K at 20 cores and threads at 5.5GHz.

Considering the 265K retails for £269-£300 in the UK and roughly $300 in the US, and the 245K sells for ~$194 / ~£170, the new-gen model provides a serious price-to-performance boost and is clearly all about value for money. That's bold, because it's trying to beat AMD at its own game, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

There's a 30MB total cache on board, which isn't close to AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which offers a 96MB L3 cache - remember, this is the part of the CPU that the X3D options double up on to provide better gaming and content creation performance. Considering that chip is usually sold in the $350 range on a good day, you're getting some great value for money here with the 250K Plus.

The latest set of Intel processors doesn't have an answer for AMD's X3D architecture, but that doesn't mean they don't have other tricks up their sleeve. The Intel Binary Optimization Tool is a feature to watch. It's, I suppose, akin to DLSS in a way in that it's a subliminal software perk that goes hand in hand with the latest generation of hardware. There's no AI upscaling happening here though; the Binary Optimization Tool simply allows Intel's software to run games more efficiently on its hardware (in theory), which could lead to better performance overall in certain games.

The reason I say it's one to watch is that, like with DLSS, it is going to rely on compatibility within games on a software level. It's not like AMD's 3D V-cache where the hardware supplies performance boosts across the board because it's a result of architecture. It's still in its early phases, and I haven't heard a whole lot of noise about it since Intel launched the Core Ultra Plus chips. So far, looking at the list of games it can provide you boosts in, things are fairly thin.

To make matters more confusing, some games have compatibility with Intel's APO Optimization, but only some within that list (bolded ones) have compatibility with the Binary Optimization Tool.

• Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail
• League of Legends
• Serious Sam 4
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Watch Dogs Legion
• Assassin's Creed Mirage
• Battlefield V
• Borderlands 3
• Cyberpunk 2077
• Far Cry 6
• Geekbench 6.3+
• Hitman 3
• Hogwarts Legacy
• Kerbal Space Program 2
• Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered
• Naraka: Bladepoint
• Remnant 2
• The Callisto Protocol
• Tiny Tina's Wonderlands
• World of Warships

Performance

Intel's desktop CPUs have never really had all that much trouble offering decent gaming and content creation performance, especially because they cram so many cores and threads in that there's always enough muscle within to handle even the heaviest lifting in demanding games.

The questions for me going into testing were more about thermal control, volatility, and a bit of bloody peace and quiet.

For context, I reviewed the Intel Core i5-3600K, which I loved. But then I moved on to the Intel Core i7-13700K and after that, the 14700K. While both of the Raptor Lake i7 chips booted out some really decent power, they were just a pain in the arse.

Thankfully, I didn't get hit with major volatility issues to the point of damaged CPUs or anything, but even with the BIOS updates to counter the issue, I was still getting the most annoying, random fan flare-ups because thermal control was just non-existent and voltages were doing whatever they felt like. This resulted in an irreversibly loud PC while working day-to-day, but manifested in random and very annoying frame stutters and dips while playing games. I also couldn't play games without the CPU riding a low of at least 70 degrees no matter the title, and that was with a full-sized NZXT AIO cooler.

I immediately noticed a massive difference with the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Ambient temperatures were sitting in the mid 30s with an ambient power of 30-42W when idling or running my work applications. And even during this ludicrous heatwave-riddled summer in the UK, it's sitting at about 42 degrees when I'm working, and there are no random, annoying temperature spikes. Playing my go-to Hunt Showdown with a 14700K meant temps in the 70s and even 80s, but with the 250K Plus it's so steady in the high 50s and 60s with no trouble at all.

In this entire sitting of review tests, I've only seen a peak of 75 in one of Blender's benchmarks. For the most part it's still calm, cool, and collected under pressure and tends to sit in the 60s. That's all with the same thermal paste and NZXT Kraken Plus AIO cooler I was using with the 14700K, which shows you the serious performance boosts of this motherboard platform versus Raptor Lake.

Non-gaming benchmarks are pretty impressive. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus demolishes the Ryzen 7 7800X3D in Blender. I haven't gone back to test that Ryzen CPU in the updated form of Cinebench, but compared to the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F I tested in the Quoted Tech Horizon, the 250K Plus does come out on top. Content creation is pretty great for the money then, even if these comparisons aren't exactly like-for-like because my testing rig is using a PNY RTX 5080 Slim, while the AMD reviews used a 7900 GRE and RX 9070 XT respectively.

The question I wanted to ask with gaming tests in this review was: could the latest Intel Core Ultra 5 keep up with an RTX 5080, to the point of negating the need for spending more on the Ultra 7 Plus. Honestly, while I haven't tested the more powerful 270K Plus yet, I'd argue the answer here is yes. While I'm sure there are better gaming performances to be netted, I think for $200 you're getting a really great 4K gaming processor here. The caveat to that is whether or not you're playing CPU-intensive games all the time. Let's look at some numbers.

In Total War: Warhammer 3's Battle benchmark, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus combined with the RTX 5080 scored 86fps, which is up from Quoted Tech's Ryzen 7 9700F score of 72fps, and up from the Ryzen 7 7800X3D's 53fps. Across the board, the Intel Core Ultra provided strong scores in Total War against comparable Ryzen chips, but that could be due to the better GPU used in these tests. In less formal testing, things are interesting because the Ryzen 7 7800X3D did pack some inexplicable performance boosts.

Cities: Skyline's community-made scenarios still fall in favor of AMD, despite Intel's updated architecture and a more powerful GPU. While these numbers aren't as set in stone as formal benchmarks, they're averages taken while playing the same sequences, and AMD wins it comfortably. In Planet Zoo, while the Ryzen 7 7800X3D scored an average of 95, the 250K Plus was a bit humbler at 78fps when operating a fully populated scenario at normal speed and 57fps when speeding up time and zooming into those busy areas of a park. Keep in mind the slowly ageing 7800X3D has ten fewer cores than Intel's latest Ultra 5.

I wouldn't argue these more modest scores are reasons not to opt for the Ultra 5, but it does show you that the X3D chips are capable of some really bold performances, especially since those numbers were recorded with an older GPU that's not got the oomph of the RTX 5080.

The only other gaming-based question I wanted to address was how the Binary Optimization Tool can impact things. I went into Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Cyberpunk for that, and compared my benchmarks with when it was turned off.

Unfortunately, in both the games I had access to that have support for this feature, I saw only tiny differences in benchmarking scores with and without Binary Optimization switched on. In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, I saw an increase by one solitary frame, and in Cyberpunk it actually decreased the benchmarking score by two. There is also the chance that I haven't managed to get it to work properly, because other sites have reported a 5% to 20% performance boost from it on average.

One more thing I will say as a general use note is that if you're planning to overclock your RAM with this CPU, maybe look elsewhere. I've paired the 250K Plus with some G.Skill performance memory that was provided by Intel to review both of its new chips with. I can see one XMP profile onboard which attempts to unlock 7200MT/s, but anytime I've attempted to boost past 4800MT/s with the 250K Plus I've been kicked back to the BIOS and told no. I'm sure with your motherboard and RAM, your mileage may vary. It's unlikely this is going to be an overclocker's first pick anyway, but it's worth keeping in mind.

Should you buy the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus?

Intel has said that it plans to support its existing motherboard platforms from here on out, and although there are rumors around the next motherboard socket arriving, I'd be inclined to believe that Intel isn't going to go back on its word, especially since we all see how the momentum in the CPU market is drifting more and more in AMD's favor. Intel needs to provide long-term socket support to win back some good faith, but judging by its track record, it all remains to be seen. That's maybe one of the bigger question marks looming over the Intel Core Ultra Plus CPUs right now, but if you're willing to trust this new-age Intel culture, there isn't much preventing me from recommending the 250K Plus.

Because that's the real issue for Intel here. Putting the lacklustre launch of Core Ultra behind us, and ignoring the blip of Raptor Lake volatility, the problem with Intel in recent years hasn't been to do with poor CPUs. Sure maybe small upgrades for full prices haven't been the most inspiring thing, but it can't be disputed that this brand makes really good desktop processors. But excellent entries alone haven't been enough. AMD has been beating Team Blue through value for money, socket longevity, and innovative architectural developments.

You can't really just determine whether a CPU is worth investing in based on performance alone anymore, because AMD has it beat through years' worth of upgrade paths. If LGA 1851 is indeed a dead platform, then the insane value for money here is a small blip that'll fade into obscurity very quickly.

There's excellent gaming and content creation to be had here for the money, and the value is hard to argue with, even if X3D chips can offer you bolder frame rates in a wider suite of games. Binary Optimization is there to be built on, and I hope it becomes a feather in the brand's cap. Personally, I'm just happy with the genuine improvements that have been made to thermals and stability since the Raptor Lake refresh scandal.

I'd thoroughly recommend this processor for its price, and for many it's all the 4K power you're going to need for gaming, work, and content creation.

How I tested the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

I used the latest Core Ultra 5 in my own gaming PC for over a month before writing this review. In that time, I used it for all sorts of work, play, and creative tasks, but also undertook more formal benchmarking to put it through its paces.

I evaluated its performance through comparisons with spec-similar AMD chips, as well as price comparisons with the rest of the market. I also used my knowledge of the CPU market to make a thorough review for consumers to help them while making a buying decision.

For more on how we test gaming PCs, check out the full-length GamesRadar+ hardware policy.

You can also look up the best gaming PCs, the best graphics cards, and the best RAM for gaming.