Intel Core 7 150HL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two Intel processors with distinctly different design goals. The Intel Core 7 150HL is a desktop-oriented Raptor Lake part with 14 cores, 20 threads, and a 45 W TDP, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is a mobile Panther Lake processor with 16 cores, 16 threads, and a 25 W TDP. The Core Ultra 9 386H holds the clear performance advantage based on its benchmark scores, placing in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 150HL sits at the 50th percentile. The Core Ultra 9 386H also has a recorded average benchmark score of 43210, whereas the Core 7 150HL has no benchmark entries in the database.

For users selecting between these two, the data points to the Core Ultra 9 386H for any workload that demands high multi-threaded throughput, as its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20547 far exceeds what the database shows for its rival (the Core 7 150HL has no recorded benchmark scores). The Core 7 150HL, however, offers a desktop socket (Intel Socket 1700) and support for DDR4 memory, which may appeal to those building or upgrading a stationary system with existing DDR4 modules. The Core Ultra 9 386H uses the mobile BGA 2540 socket and supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, indicating it is intended for laptops or compact mobile platforms. The choice ultimately comes down to platform: the Core 7 150HL suits desktop builds with DDR4 compatibility, while the Core Ultra 9 386H delivers superior measured performance in a mobile package.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from separate Intel architectures and process nodes. The Core 7 150HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and is fabricated on a 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake-H codename and is built on a 3 nm process. This process difference is substantial, as the 3 nm node allows for a denser and more power-efficient transistor layout, which partially explains the Core Ultra 9 386H achieving higher benchmark scores despite a lower 25 W TDP compared to the 45 W TDP of the Core 7 150HL.

Core and thread counts also differ meaningfully. The Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid configuration where some cores support simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, meaning it lacks SMT and runs one thread per core. Despite having fewer threads, the Core Ultra 9 386H still posts far stronger multi-core scores, which the data attributes to its newer 3 nm architecture and higher per-core cache allocation.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. The Core 7 150HL provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 386H offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 386H has substantially larger L1 and L2 caches per core, while the Core 7 150HL has more total L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Panther Lake part likely contribute to its higher single-thread scores, as more data can be held closer to the execution units.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 150HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core Ultra 9 386H uses the newer Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not provide benchmark scores for either iGPU, so a quantitative comparison is not possible, but the architectural generational gap suggests the Xe3 implementation is newer.

Memory support separates the two further. The Core 7 150HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, while the Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Core 7 150HL does not have a listed memory bandwidth figure. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 7 150HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only), giving the mobile part both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 150HL has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 7 150HL is 0.10 GHz higher in boost frequency.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Intel Core 7 150HL has a TDP of 45 W, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 W. The Core 7 150HL consumes more power per the specification sheet.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 386H support DDR4 memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory only. The Core 7 150HL is the one that supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the Core Ultra 9 386H?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 7 150HL has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 386H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The nearest rivals to the Core Ultra 9 386H are the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 with an average score of 43326 (0.3% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 with an average score of 43431 (0.5% higher), the Intel Core i9-12900 with an average score of 42906 (0.7% lower), and the Intel Core i9-12900KF with an average score of 42830 (0.9% lower). The Core Ultra 9 386H sits between these rivals, slightly behind the two AMD parts and slightly ahead of the two Intel desktop parts.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2071.5. The Core 7 150HL has no recorded Cinebench R23 scores in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields in the database. The Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the Core 7 150HL and 2.10 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 386H. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz and 4.90 GHz, respectively. The TDP is 45 W for the Core 7 150HL and 25 W for the Core Ultra 9 386H.

The socket types are entirely different: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 7 150HL versus Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The architecture is Raptor Lake for the former and Panther Lake for the latter, with codenames Raptor Lake-PS and Panther Lake-H, respectively. The process node is 10 nm for the Core 7 150HL and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 9 386H.

Cache configurations differ in every level. L1 cache is 80 KB per core on the Core 7 150HL versus 192 KB per core on the Core Ultra 9 386H. L2 cache is 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache is 24 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support shows the Core 7 150HL accepting DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 386H accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra 9 386H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s; the Core 7 150HL has no such figure.

PCIe connectivity sees the Core 7 150HL at Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), and the Core Ultra 9 386H at Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 96EU on the Core 7 150HL versus Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Core Ultra 9 386H. The market segment is Desktop for the Core 7 150HL and Mobile for the Core Ultra 9 386H. Release dates are 2024-04-07 for the Core 7 150HL and 2026-01-04 for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The Core Ultra 9 386H has a part number of SA4R5Q9EH, while the Core 7 150HL lists its part number as unknown.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors, and the Core 7 150HL has zero benchmark scores recorded. This makes a direct comparison of individual test results impossible. However, the Core Ultra 9 386H has a full set of Cinebench and PassMark scores that can be examined on their own merits.

In Cinebench R15, the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 3223 in multicore and 303.5 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 12820 multicore and 1809 single-core. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score is 20547 and the single-core score is 2071.5. These results show a strong scaling pattern across Cinebench versions, with the multicore scores increasing roughly fourfold from R15 to R23, consistent with the workload demands of each version.

PassMark results for the Core Ultra 9 386H show 35399 in multithreaded performance and 4218 in single-threaded performance. The integer math score is 87284, floating point math is 108527, and extended instructions score is 29138. Data compression scores 352365, data encryption scores 27150, and random string sorting scores 42135. The find prime numbers test returns 341, and the physics test returns 3028.

The Core 7 150HL has no such scores, so it cannot be positioned against these numbers directly. The percentile data, however, provides context: the Core Ultra 9 386H sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 150HL sits at the 50th percentile. This 38-percentile gap indicates that the Core Ultra 9 386H outperforms the majority of recorded CPUs, while the Core 7 150HL lands at the median. The average benchmark score of 43210 for the Core Ultra 9 386H further quantifies its standing, though no comparable figure exists for the Core 7 150HL.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Core Ultra 9 386H wins on every measurable performance front. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20547, PassMark multithread score of 35399, and PassMark single-thread score of 4218 demonstrate capability across both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads. Its 88th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 43210 reinforce that it performs at a high level relative to the broader CPU landscape. The Core Ultra 9 386H also wins on memory bandwidth with a recorded 115.2 GB/s, on PCIe generation with Gen 5, and on lane count with 12 lanes versus 8.

The Core 7 150HL wins on specifications that favor desktop integration. It uses the Intel Socket 1700, which is a desktop socket, and supports DDR4 memory, which allows for lower-cost or legacy memory modules. Its boost clock of 5.00 GHz is higher than the 4.90 GHz of the Core Ultra 9 386H, and its base clock of 2.40 GHz also exceeds the 2.10 GHz base clock of the rival. The Core 7 150HL has more threads (20 versus 16) and more L3 cache (24 MB versus 18 MB), though these advantages do not translate into recorded benchmark scores.

For use-case selection, the data supports choosing the Core Ultra 9 386H for any application where measured performance matters, such as content creation, scientific computing, or heavy multitasking, given its multicore and single-core scores. The Core 7 150HL is the appropriate pick for a desktop system where the socket type, DDR4 support, and higher clock speeds align with an existing platform. The absence of benchmark data for the Core 7 150HL means its real-world performance cannot be verified from the database, so any selection involving it rests on platform compatibility rather than measured results. The Core Ultra 9 386H, by contrast, has a complete benchmark profile that confirms its standing as the higher-performing processor of the two.