Intel Core 7 150U vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a complete victory for the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core Ultra X9 378H records the higher score. The Intel Core 7 150U does not register a single win in the database's direct comparisons, making the performance hierarchy unambiguous.

For workloads involving rendering, mathematical computation, data compression, or encryption, the Core Ultra X9 378H is the clear choice. Its 16 cores and 16 threads directly translate into substantial multi-threaded advantages, with the Cinebench R23 multi-core score showing a 72.7% lead over the Core 7 150U (32553 vs 8883). The Core Ultra X9 378H also ranks in the 89th percentile among all CPUs in the database, compared to the 71st percentile for the Core 7 150U.

The Core 7 150U's role is restricted to scenarios where power efficiency and a lower thermal envelope matter more than raw performance. Its 15 W TDP is 10 W lower than the Core Ultra X9 378H's 25 W TDP, and it uses an older 10 nm process node. For lightweight mobile systems prioritizing battery life over compute capacity, the Core 7 150U fits that niche, but the data shows it cannot compete with the Core Ultra X9 378H in any measured performance category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design eras. The Core 7 150U is built on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-U codename, and uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Core Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename and is fabricated on a 3 nm process node, also from Intel. This process node difference is significant because the smaller node enables higher transistor density and improved power efficiency.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 7 150U has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Core 7 150U relies on hyper-threading to reach 12 threads from 10 cores, whereas the Core Ultra X9 378H has more physical cores and does not use hyper-threading. The Core Ultra X9 378H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) generation, while the Core 7 150U is from the Core 7 (Raptor Lake-U) generation.

Cache hierarchy differences are pronounced. The Core 7 150U provides 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 X9 378H offers 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Each cache level is larger on the Core Ultra X9 378H, which contributes to its higher single-thread performance.

Memory support also differs. The Core 7 150U supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The Core Ultra X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The PCIe interface differs as well: the Core 7 150U uses Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra X9 378H uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 150U includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core Ultra X9 378H includes Arc B390 graphics, a more recent GPU design. The socket types are incompatible: the Core 7 150U uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 150U has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra X9 378H's boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Despite this, the Core Ultra X9 378H wins the single-thread benchmarks by a wide margin.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the Core Ultra X9 378H?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, which is 6 MB more than the Core 7 150U's 12 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H has an average benchmark score of 47468, while the Core 7 150U has an average benchmark score of 17395. The Core Ultra X9 378H scores approximately 2.7 times higher on average.

Q: Which processor supports faster PCIe connectivity?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes, while the Core 7 150U supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. The newer Gen 5 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 7 150U supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Core Ultra X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X memory, with a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor ranks higher in the database's percentile comparison?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H ranks in the 89th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 7 150U ranks in the 71st percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 150U | Intel Core Ultra X9 378H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.80 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | Not specified | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU | Arc B390 |

| Release date | 2024-01-07 | 2026-04-03 |

| Part number | SRMYP | Unknown |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra X9 378H dominates every recorded benchmark. The largest margin appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra X9 378H scores 357 versus 58 for the Core 7 150U, a delta of 83.8%. This test heavily relies on integer arithmetic and core count, and the 16-core processor leverages its additional cores effectively.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 72.7% advantage for the Core Ultra X9 378H (32553 vs 8883). The R20 multi-core test shows a 61.6% lead (13672 vs 5248), and R15 multi-core shows a 54.1% lead (3281 vs 1505.5). These consistent multi-core margins confirm that the extra six physical cores on the Core Ultra X9 378H translate directly into rendering performance.

Single-core results also favor the Core Ultra X9 378H, although by smaller margins. The PassMark single-thread test shows a 21.2% advantage (4453 vs 3508). Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 59.2% lead (4595 vs 1875.5), and R20 single-core shows a 61.6% lead (1929 vs 740). The R15 single-core test shows a 45% lead (462 vs 254). The smaller percentage gap in PassMark single-thread compared to Cinebench single-core suggests the Core 7 150U's high boost clock of 5.40 GHz helps in some lightly-threaded workloads, but the newer architecture of the Core Ultra X9 378H still wins decisively.

PassMark integer math shows the smallest multi-core margin at 44.9% (92603 vs 51057). Floating-point math shows a 70% lead for the Core Ultra X9 378H (114500 vs 34405). Data encryption shows a 66.4% lead (29840 vs 10025). Data compression shows a 59% lead (386591 vs 158622). Extended instructions show a 72.1% lead (31315 vs 8748). Random string sorting shows a 59.1% lead (44648 vs 18269). The physics test shows a 70.3% lead (3404 vs 1012).

The multithread PassMark score confirms the overall pattern: 38298 for the Core Ultra X9 378H versus 14700 for the Core 7 150U, a 61.6% difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X9 378H wins in every measured category, so the differentiation comes down to workload types and system-level constraints rather than benchmark outcomes.

For multi-threaded productivity, the Core Ultra X9 378H is the only choice. Rendering tasks in Cinebench R23, R20, and R15 show consistent 54% to 73% advantages. The 16-core configuration with 16 threads handles parallel workloads without relying on hyper-threading, which explains the strong scaling in integer math, floating-point math, and extended instruction tests. The PassMark physics score of 3404 versus 1012 indicates strong performance in simulation workloads.

For single-thread responsiveness, the Core Ultra X9 378H still leads, but the margin narrows to 21.2% in the PassMark single-thread test. The Core 7 150U's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz likely explains why the gap is smaller here than in multi-core tests. However, the Core Ultra X9 378H's larger L2 and L3 caches (2.5 MB per core and 18 MB shared, respectively) provide enough of an advantage to win even in lightly-threaded scenarios.

For data-intensive operations like compression and encryption, the Core Ultra X9 378H shows 59% and 66.4% leads, respectively. The 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth on the Core Ultra X9 378H supports these workloads, while the Core 7 150U has no recorded memory bandwidth figure to compare.

The Core 7 150U's only advantages are structural rather than performance-based. Its 15 W TDP is lower, making it suitable for passive-cooled or ultra-portable designs. Its support for DDR4 memory allows for cheaper system builds where LPDDR5X is not required. Its PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes provides more CPU-attached lanes than the Core Ultra X9 378H's 4 lanes, though at an older standard. The release date of 2024-01-07 also places it earlier in the market than the Core Ultra X9 378H's 2026-04-03 release, which may matter for platform availability.

In the database's nearest rivals comparison, the Core 7 150U's average score of 17395 sits within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE, indicating it competes in the mid-range mobile segment. The Core Ultra X9 378H's average score of 47468 places it within 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-12900F and within 0.5% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T, positioning it in the high-performance desktop-class mobile segment.