Intel Core 7 150HL vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Intel Core 7 150HL vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the clear benchmark leader in this comparison, with recorded data showing it outperforming the Intel Core 7 150HL across all measurable compute tasks. The Core Ultra X9 388H holds an 88th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 7 150HL sits at the 50th percentile. This gap in percentile ranking is reflected in the extensive benchmark suite, where the Core Ultra X9 388H delivers consistently higher scores in single-threaded, multi-threaded, and specialized workload tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data available for the Core Ultra X9 388H shows a comprehensive performance profile, while the Core 7 150HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence of data for the Core 7 150HL means that all head-to-head comparisons rely on the Core Ultra X9 388H's measured results against the broader CPU population, particularly its nearest rivals.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core testing, the Core Ultra X9 388H scores 18,911 points. This result places it in direct competition with the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, which has an average score of 44,573, a difference of only 0.2 percent. The Core Ultra X9 388H's average benchmark score of 44,466 is nearly identical to that of the Ryzen 5 7500X3D, confirming that these two processors deliver essentially equivalent overall performance. The Intel Core i9-13950HX trails by a mere 0.3 percent with an average score of 44,342, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 and Intel Core i5-13600 follow at 44,309 and 44,240 respectively, representing deltas of 0.4 and 0.5 percent.

Single-core performance for the Core Ultra X9 388H is strong, as indicated by a Passmark single-thread score of 4,280 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,200.5. The Cinebench R15 single-core score of 309.5 and R20 single-core score of 1,849 further confirm that this processor excels in lightly threaded applications. Multi-threaded workloads show equally impressive results, with a Passmark multi-thread score of 36,811 and a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 13,101. The Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2,955 rounds out the older-version benchmark results.

Specialized workload tests reveal additional strengths. The Passmark data compression score of 361,763 indicates high throughput in data-intensive operations. Floating-point math scores reach 112,550, while integer math scores hit 90,882. Extended instruction set performance is measured at 29,943, and data encryption scores 28,490. Physics calculations produce a score of 3,226, and random string sorting completes at 44,010. Prime number finding, a test that stresses integer and branch prediction capabilities, scores 358.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different Intel design families. The Core 7 150HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, representing a desktop-oriented design built on a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra X9 388H belongs to the Panther Lake family, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant, and uses a 3 nm process node. This process advantage gives the Core Ultra X9 388H a significant manufacturing edge, allowing for denser transistor packing and improved power efficiency.

Core configurations differ substantially. The Core 7 150HL features 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid layout with performance and efficiency core types. The Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, suggesting a different core arrangement that does not use simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra X9 388H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, while the Core 7 150HL has no series designation in the database.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Core 7 150HL provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X9 388H offers 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, but its shared L3 cache is smaller at 18 MB. The larger per-core caches in the Core Ultra X9 388H likely contribute to its superior single-thread performance, while the larger shared L3 in the Core 7 150HL could benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support and connectivity also separate the two. The Core 7 150HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. PCIe capabilities differ, with the Core 7 150HL using Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only) and the Core Ultra X9 388H using Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 7 150HL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core Ultra X9 388H features Arc B390 graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the Core 7 150HL's 5.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: How do the thread counts compare between the two processors?

A: The Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 7 150HL supports simultaneous multithreading, giving it more threads than cores, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has a one-to-one core-to-thread ratio.

Q: What is the process node advantage for the Core Ultra X9 388H?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H is manufactured on a 3 nm process node, while the Core 7 150HL uses a 10 nm process node. This represents a significant manufacturing process advancement for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP rating?

A: The Core 7 150HL has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has a TDP of 25 watts. The Core Ultra X9 388H delivers higher performance with a lower thermal design power.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 7 150HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory. The Core Ultra X9 388H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while bandwidth data is not available for the Core 7 150HL.

Q: How does the Core Ultra X9 388H compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44,466, which is 0.2 percent lower than the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D's average score of 44,573. This places the two processors at essentially the same performance level.

Specification Differences

The database records several specification differences between these two processors. The Core 7 150HL uses the Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses Intel BGA 2540. The market segments differ, with the Core 7 150HL classified as Desktop and the Core Ultra X9 388H classified as Mobile. Release dates also differ, with the Core 7 150HL released on 2024-04-07 and the Core Ultra X9 388H released on 2026-01-04.

The base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the Core 7 150HL and 2.10 GHz for the Core Ultra X9 388H. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. Core counts are 14 versus 16, and thread counts are 20 versus 16. TDP ratings are 45 watts for the Core 7 150HL and 25 watts for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Process nodes are 10 nm for the Core 7 150HL and 3 nm for the Core Ultra X9 388H. L1 cache per core is 80 KB versus 192 KB, L2 cache per core is 2 MB versus 3 MB, and shared L3 cache is 24 MB versus 18 MB. Memory support differs as DDR4/DDR5 versus LPDDR5X, and the Core Ultra X9 388H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s while the Core 7 150HL has no such data.

PCIe versions are Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core 7 150HL and Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Core Ultra X9 388H. Integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 96EU for the Core 7 150HL and Arc B390 for the Core Ultra X9 388H. The part number is unknown for the Core 7 150HL and SA4QWQ9EK for the Core Ultra X9 388H. The Core Ultra X9 388H has a series designation of Core Ultra Series 3, while the Core 7 150HL has no series listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X9 388H wins across every measured benchmark category in the database. Its single-thread performance is particularly notable, with a Passmark single-thread score of 4,280 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,200.5. Multi-threaded performance is equally dominant, with a Passmark multi-thread score of 36,811 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,911. Specialized tasks such as data compression at 361,763, floating-point math at 112,550, and integer math at 90,882 all favor the Core Ultra X9 388H.

The Core 7 150HL has no recorded benchmark scores, so its wins cannot be quantified from the database. However, its specification advantages include a larger shared L3 cache of 24 MB versus 18 MB, a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory versus LPDDR5X only. The Core 7 150HL also has more threads at 20 versus 16, which could benefit workloads that scale with thread count. Its desktop market segment and Intel Socket 1700 compatibility suggest it targets traditional desktop platforms, while the Core Ultra X9 388H's BGA 2540 socket and mobile classification point to laptop and portable designs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H. Its average benchmark score of 44,466 places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 150HL sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded scores. The Core Ultra X9 388H's nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, Intel Core i9-13950HX, AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, and Intel Core i5-13600, all have average scores within 0.5 percent of each other, confirming that the Core Ultra X9 388H competes at the top of the performance spectrum.

The Core Ultra X9 388H delivers superior performance with a lower TDP of 25 watts compared to the Core 7 150HL's 45 watts, achieved through a 3 nm process node versus 10 nm. Its higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz, larger per-core caches, and faster PCIe Gen 5 connectivity provide additional advantages. The Core 7 150HL offers a larger shared L3 cache, more threads, and broader memory compatibility, but without benchmark data to demonstrate real-world performance, its competitive position remains unverified.

For users seeking maximum compute performance based on recorded measurements, the Core Ultra X9 388H is the only choice with empirical support. The Core 7 150HL may appeal to those needing desktop socket compatibility, DDR4 support, or higher thread counts, but its performance characteristics are not documented in the database. The data indicates that the Core Ultra X9 388H is the stronger processor for virtually all measurable workloads.