Intel Core 7 150U vs Intel Core Ultra 7 164U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably one-sided comparison. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Intel Core 7 150U wins every single test. The Core Ultra 7 164U does not claim a single victory in any measured workload. The margins vary considerably, from a narrow 1.3% advantage to a decisive 20.7% lead, but the direction is consistent throughout.

The largest gap appears in PassMark random string sorting, where the Core 7 150U scores 18,269 against 15,131 for the Core Ultra 7 164U, a 20.7% advantage. This workload is particularly sensitive to memory latency and per-core efficiency, and the data indicates the Raptor Lake design handles it substantially better. Cinebench R23 single-core also shows a pronounced difference: the Core 7 150U posts 1,875.5 versus 1,590, an 18% lead that reflects a strong single-thread advantage.

Multi-core rendering tells a slightly more nuanced story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 7 150U scores 8,883 while the Core Ultra 7 164U scores 8,766, a margin of only 1.3%. That is the closest result in the entire comparison. However, the older Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a much larger gap, with the Core 7 150U at 5,248 and the Core Ultra 7 164U at 4,488, a 16.9% difference. Similarly, Cinebench R15 multi-core favors the Core 7 150U by 15.5%, 1,505.5 to 1,304. The pattern suggests that the Core 7 150U maintains its advantage across rendering workloads, though the gap narrows in the most recent R23 version.

Single-core performance follows the same trend. Cinebench R15 single-core gives the Core 7 150U a 12.9% lead, 254 to 225. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 16.9% lead, 740 to 633. PassMark single-thread scores reinforce this, with the Core 7 150U at 3,508 versus 2,996, a 17.1% advantage. These numbers indicate that the Core 7 150U has a clear edge in lightly threaded tasks, which matters for everyday responsiveness and applications that rely on a few fast cores.

In the PassMark suite, the Core 7 150U leads in every category. Data compression shows a 15.7% advantage, 158,622 to 137,133. Data encryption is 13.4% ahead, 10,025 to 8,838. Extended instructions favor the Core 7 150U by 10.5%, 8,748 to 7,918. Prime number finding is close at 3.6%, 58 to 56. Floating point math shows a modest 2.5% edge, 34,405 to 33,581. Integer math is nearly tied at 1.3%, 51,057 to 50,387. The multithread score gives the Core 7 150U a 10.6% lead, 14,700 to 13,296, while physics shows a 10.2% advantage, 1,012 to 918.

The average benchmark score for the Core 7 150U is 17,395, placing it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 7 164U averages 17,074, also in the 71st percentile. The absolute difference is 321 points, roughly 1.9%. Both processors sit in the same percentile band, which indicates that despite the head-to-head sweep, the overall performance class is similar. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 150U include the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 at 17,333 (0.4% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE at 17,482 (0.5% ahead). The Core Ultra 7 164U sits near the Intel Core i5-11400 at 17,067 (0% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 at 17,035 (0.2% behind).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users. The Intel Core 7 150U outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U in every recorded benchmark. If raw performance is the priority, the Core 7 150U is the superior option. It delivers higher scores across single-core, multi-core, and every PassMark workload tested. The margins are not trivial either, several exceed 15%, and the random string sorting result reaches 20.7%.

However, the Core Ultra 7 164U has one distinct advantage in the recorded specifications: power consumption. Its TDP is 9 watts, compared to 15 watts for the Core 7 150U. That is a substantial difference in a mobile context. Users who prioritize battery life, low heat output, or fanless designs may find the Core Ultra 7 164U more appealing, even with its lower benchmark scores. The Core Ultra 7 164U also carries a launch MSRP of $448, while the Core 7 150U has no recorded launch price.

The Core 7 150U is the better choice for performance-oriented buyers who are not constrained by power limits. The Core Ultra 7 164U is the better choice for ultra-portable designs where the 9-watt TDP matters more than the benchmark deltas. The benchmark data does not indicate any workload where the Core Ultra 7 164U wins, so the decision rests entirely on the power envelope and platform trade-offs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 7 150U wins with a score of 8,883 versus 8,766 for the Core Ultra 7 164U, a margin of 1.3%.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The Core 7 150U leads by 18% in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 1,875.5 against 1,590. PassMark single-thread shows a 17.1% advantage, 3,508 to 2,996.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 164U win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data records 17 wins for the Core 7 150U and zero wins for the Core Ultra 7 164U.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core 7 150U has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 164U has a TDP of 9 watts.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 7 150U averages 17,395, and the Core Ultra 7 164U averages 17,074. Both sit in the 71st percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor?

A: For the Core 7 150U, the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 is 0.4% behind and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE is 0.5% ahead. For the Core Ultra 7 164U, the Intel Core i5-11400 is at a 0% delta and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is 0.2% behind.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The Core 7 150U has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 164U has 12 cores and 14 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Core 7 150U wins all benchmarks, which indicates that core count alone does not determine performance here.

Base clock speeds are recorded differently. The Core 7 150U has a base clock of 1.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 164U lists a base clock of 1100.00, which appears to be expressed in a different unit or format in the database. The boost clock for the Core 7 150U is 5.40 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 164U boosts to 4.80 GHz. The higher boost clock on the Core 7 150U likely explains much of its single-core advantage.

TDP differs significantly. The Core 7 150U is rated at 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 164U is rated at 9 watts. This makes the Core Ultra 7 164U the more power-efficient part on paper. The socket also differs: the Core 7 150U uses Intel BGA 1744, and the Core Ultra 7 164U uses Intel BGA 2551. They are not socket-compatible.

Memory support differs. The Core 7 150U supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 164U supports DDR5 with a note that it depends on the motherboard. Both use dual-channel memory buses. PCIe support is identical: Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU.

The integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 150U has Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core Ultra 7 164U has Arc Xe-LPG with 64 execution units. The Core 7 150U has more execution units, though the Core Ultra 7 164U uses a newer graphics architecture.

The release dates differ by less than a month. The Core Ultra 7 164U was released on December 13, 2023. The Core 7 150U followed on January 7, 2024. The Core Ultra 7 164U has a launch MSRP of $448, while the Core 7 150U has no recorded launch price.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The Core 7 150U is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-U codename. The Core Ultra 7 164U uses Meteor Lake, with the same codename. This is a generational shift in Intel's mobile lineup, but the benchmark data shows that the older architecture performs better in this comparison.

The process nodes differ. The Core 7 150U is fabricated on a 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 7 164U uses a 7 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel. The smaller process node on the Core Ultra 7 164U likely contributes to its lower 9-watt TDP, but it does not translate into higher benchmark scores in the recorded data.

Cache hierarchies differ. The Core 7 150U has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The Core Ultra 7 164U has 112 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. Both share 12 MB of L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 164U has larger per-core caches, yet still loses in every benchmark. This suggests that the performance difference is driven more by clock speeds and architectural efficiency than by cache capacity.

The Core 7 150U has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Core Ultra 7 164U has 12 cores and 14 threads. The thread counts do not match the core counts in either case, which indicates that both processors use a mix of performance and efficiency cores. The specific core configuration is not fully detailed in the database, but the recorded core and thread counts show that the Core Ultra 7 164U has more resources available.

The integrated graphics differ in execution unit count. The Core 7 150U has 96 EUs in its Iris Xe Graphics. The Core Ultra 7 164U has 64 EUs in its Arc Xe-LPG graphics. The newer Arc architecture may offer better feature support, but the EU count favors the Core 7 150U.

Both processors are unlocked multipliers, neither supports ECC memory, and both use the same PCIe configuration of Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The production status for both is listed as active. The part numbers differ: SRMYP for the Core 7 150U and SRN85 for the Core Ultra 7 164U.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 150U wins in every performance category recorded in the database. It leads in single-core tests, multi-core tests, and all PassMark workloads. The strongest margins appear in random string sorting at 20.7%, Cinebench R23 single-core at 18%, PassMark single-thread at 17.1%, Cinebench R20 multi-core at 16.9%, and data compression at 15.7%. These results point to a processor that is simply faster across the board, with particularly strong single-thread performance and data handling capabilities.

Users who run CPU-intensive applications such as rendering, data compression, encryption, or physics simulations should favor the Core 7 150U. The Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core scores show double-digit leads, and even the closer R23 result stays in its favor. The PassMark data compression and encryption scores suggest that archive handling and security workloads will complete faster on the Core 7 150U.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U has no benchmark wins to claim. Its advantage lies entirely outside the performance data. The 9-watt TDP is the defining feature. In thin-and-light laptops, tablets, or passively cooled designs, the lower power draw can enable longer battery life and quieter operation. The newer 7 nm process node and Meteor Lake architecture are also points in its favor for efficiency-focused designs. The larger L1 and L2 caches per core suggest architectural sophistication, but the recorded benchmarks do not translate that into higher scores.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision is straightforward. Performance seekers pick the Core 7 150U. Efficiency seekers pick the Core Ultra 7 164U. The database records no scenario where the Core Ultra 7 164U outperforms the Core 7 150U, so any preference for the Ultra part must be based on power, platform, or feature considerations rather than speed.