Intel Core 5 130UL vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Intel Core 5 130UL and Intel Core Ultra X7 368H occupy different ends of the Intel product stack, with the former built for low-power desktop systems and the latter aimed at high-performance mobile computing. The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these two processors, so the analysis below relies on the recorded specifications and the available benchmark results for the Core Ultra X7 368H, along with its percentile ranking and rival comparisons.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra X7 368H has a substantial advantage in multi-threaded workloads, as the recorded data shows. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28221 points, which places it in the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database. This result indicates strong performance for heavily threaded tasks such as video rendering, 3D modeling, and scientific simulations. The Core 5 130UL has no recorded benchmark scores, so direct numerical comparisons are impossible, but the architectural differences outlined below explain why the gap is expected to be wide.

Single-thread performance also favors the Core Ultra X7 368H. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3984 points, combined with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, suggests excellent responsiveness in everyday applications and lightly threaded workloads. The Core 5 130UL's boost clock of 4.70 GHz is lower, and its older Raptor Lake architecture delivers fewer instructions per clock compared to the Panther Lake design used in the Core Ultra X7 368H.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the Core Ultra X7 368H, the Passmark multi-thread score of 32956 and the Passmark single-thread score of 4005 confirm the processor's balanced capabilities. The floating point math score of 105681 and integer math score of 88083 show strong arithmetic throughput, while the data compression score of 312927 indicates efficient handling of compression algorithms. The data encryption score of 25228 and extended instructions score of 25669 reflect solid cryptographic and SIMD performance.

The Core Ultra X7 368H's average benchmark score of 40518 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs tracked in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core 7 253PE with an average score of 40557 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core 5 223PE with 40585 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H with 40431 (0.2% lower), and the Intel Xeon 6507P with 40426 (0.2% lower). These delta percentages show that the Core Ultra X7 368H sits within a narrow performance band of competing processors, with differences of less than a quarter of a percent across all four rivals.

For the Core 5 130UL, the database lists a benchmark percentile of 50, meaning it performs at the median level of all CPUs. No average benchmark score is recorded, and the nearest rivals list is empty, so no direct numerical comparisons can be made. The absence of benchmark data for the Core 5 130UL limits the head-to-head analysis, but the specification differences provide a clear picture of the performance hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Core Ultra X7 368H also has a higher base clock of 2.00 GHz compared to 1.60 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.70 GHz.

Q: How do their cache configurations compare?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 130UL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 368H has larger caches at every level.

Q: What are the differences in manufacturing process and architecture?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H uses a 3 nm process node and is based on the Panther Lake architecture with the codename Panther Lake. The Core 5 130UL uses a 10 nm process node and is based on the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS. Both processors are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory and PCIe?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. It also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 130UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded, and it uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What are the integrated graphics solutions?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H features Arc B390 integrated graphics, while the Core 5 130UL features Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. The Arc B390 represents a more modern and capable graphics solution, but no benchmark scores are recorded for either integrated GPU.

Q: How do their release dates and market segments differ?

A: The Core 5 130UL was released on 2024-04-07 and targets the desktop market segment. The Core Ultra X7 368H was released on 2026-01-04 and targets the mobile market segment. Both processors are currently listed as active in production.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, a 3 nm design from Intel, while the Core 5 130UL relies on the older Raptor Lake architecture built on a 10 nm process node. This process node difference is significant for power efficiency and transistor density, as the 3 nm node allows for more transistors in the same die area and reduces switching power. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 watts, while the Core 5 130UL has a TDP of 15 watts, which means the Core Ultra X7 368H consumes more power but also delivers more performance per watt in absolute terms.

The core configurations differ fundamentally. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, indicating a design without hyperthreading on any core, while the Core 5 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, suggesting a hybrid arrangement with some cores supporting hyperthreading. The Core Ultra X7 368H's higher thread count directly contributes to its superior multi-threaded benchmark results, as seen in the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28221.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Core Ultra X7 368H allocates 192 KB of L1 cache per core, compared to 80 KB per core for the Core 5 130UL. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core, and the L3 cache is 18 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Larger caches reduce memory latency and improve performance in data-intensive workloads, which is reflected in the Core Ultra X7 368H's Passmark data compression score of 312927.

Memory support differs as well. The Core Ultra X7 368H exclusively supports LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 5 130UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also with a dual-channel bus, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core Ultra X7 368H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 130UL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Gen 5 interface offers higher bandwidth per lane, though the Core 5 130UL has more lanes available.

Integrated graphics take different approaches. The Core Ultra X7 368H includes Arc B390 graphics, which is a newer generation solution, while the Core 5 130UL includes Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. Neither has recorded benchmark scores for graphics performance, so the comparison is limited to specification differences. The socket types also differ: the Core 5 130UL uses Intel Socket 1700, which is a desktop socket, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540, which is a mobile socket.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two processors. The Core Ultra X7 368H, with its 16 cores, 5.00 GHz boost clock, 3 nm process node, and larger caches, delivers benchmark results that place it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28221 and Passmark single-thread score of 4005 indicate strong performance across both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. The Core 5 130UL, with its 10 cores, 4.70 GHz boost clock, 10 nm process node, and smaller caches, sits at the 50th percentile, which represents median performance among all CPUs in the database.

For users seeking maximum compute capability, the Core Ultra X7 368H is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its higher core count, faster clocks, newer architecture, and superior memory bandwidth enable it to handle demanding workloads with headroom. The Core 5 130UL, on the other hand, offers lower power consumption at 15 watts TDP compared to 25 watts, which makes it suitable for systems where thermal and power constraints are priorities. The desktop socket of the Core 5 130UL allows for easier integration into standard desktop motherboards, while the mobile BGA socket of the Core Ultra X7 368H is intended for laptops and compact mobile devices.

The Core Ultra X7 368H's nearest rivals show that it competes within a tight performance band. The Intel Core 7 253PE is 0.1% faster, the Intel Core 5 223PE is 0.2% faster, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H is 0.2% slower, and the Intel Xeon 6507P is 0.2% slower. These small percentage differences mean that the Core Ultra X7 368H is effectively on par with these competing processors, and system-level factors such as cooling, memory, and motherboard design may determine the final outcome.

The Core 5 130UL has no recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals, so its performance cannot be directly quantified against other processors. However, its specification profile suggests it is a modest desktop processor suited for basic computing tasks, office productivity, and light media consumption. The Core Ultra X7 368H, in contrast, is positioned for content creation, software development, and other compute-intensive applications.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 5 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. Base clock speeds are 2.00 GHz versus 1.60 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.00 GHz versus 4.70 GHz, both favoring the Core Ultra X7 368H. TDP values are 25 watts for the Core Ultra X7 368H and 15 watts for the Core 5 130UL.

The process node is 3 nm for the Core Ultra X7 368H and 10 nm for the Core 5 130UL. The architecture is Panther Lake for the Core Ultra X7 368H and Raptor Lake for the Core 5 130UL, with codenames Panther Lake and Raptor Lake-PS respectively. The generation is listed as Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) for the Core Ultra X7 368H and Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) for the Core 5 130UL.

Cache configurations differ at every level: L1 cache is 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core, L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core, and L3 cache is 18 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory, while the Core 5 130UL supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while no such figure exists for the Core 5 130UL. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe support is Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Core Ultra X7 368H and Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core 5 130UL. Integrated graphics are Arc B390 for the Core Ultra X7 368H and Iris Xe Graphics 80EU for the Core 5 130UL. The sockets are Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra X7 368H and Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 5 130UL. The market segments are Mobile for the Core Ultra X7 368H and Desktop for the Core 5 130UL. Release dates are 2026-01-04 for the Core Ultra X7 368H and 2024-04-07 for the Core 5 130UL. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as active in production. The part number for the Core Ultra X7 368H is SA4R7Q9EJ, while the Core 5 130UL has an unknown part number.