Intel Core 7 150UL vs Intel Core 7 251E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Core 7 150UL versus the Intel Core 7 251E. Both processors show an average benchmark score of 0 and hold identical percentile rankings at 50, meaning neither part has been measured in a comparative workload suite within the current dataset. This absence of empirical results is notable, given the substantial architectural differences between the two desktop CPUs.

Without measured scores, the comparison rests on structural specifications. The Core 7 251E offers 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core 7 150UL provides 10 cores and 12 threads. That is a 14-core, 20-thread gap in favor of the 251E. The boost clock differential is equally pronounced: the 251E reaches 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz for the 150UL, a 0.60 GHz advantage. The 251E also carries a larger shared L3 cache at 36 MB, triple the 12 MB found on the 150UL. These figures suggest the 251E should dominate in multi-threaded and sustained workloads, but the database cannot confirm this with actual benchmark output.

The 150UL counters with a significantly lower thermal envelope. Its 15 W TDP contrasts with the 251E's 65 W TDP. For workloads where power draw is the limiting factor, the 150UL's efficiency profile is the only measurable advantage. The base clock of the 150UL sits at 1.70 GHz, while the 251E starts at 2.10 GHz, so the 251E leads even at idle-to-load transition points. The data indicates a clear directional story, but the absence of direct scores means every conclusion remains inferential.

FAQ

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E reaches 5.60 GHz, which is 0.60 GHz higher than the 5.00 GHz boost clock of the Intel Core 7 150UL.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache capacity?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 7 150UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The 251E holds a 24 MB advantage.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel memory buses. However, the 251E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the 150UL has no bandwidth figure in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP rating?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has a TDP of 65 W, while the Intel Core 7 150UL has a TDP of 15 W. The 150UL consumes less power by design.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 150UL does not support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply at the architectural level. The Intel Core 7 150UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with a Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a process node also listed as 10 nm, but its architecture field is null in the database. The 251E measures 257 mm² in die size, while the 150UL has no recorded die size.

Core organization differs in L2 cache allocation. The 150UL provides 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, while the 251E provides 2 MB per core. Both share the same L1 cache configuration at 80 KB per core. The 251E's larger per-core L2 cache, combined with its higher core count, points toward better per-thread data locality and reduced reliance on shared L3.

Memory bandwidth also separates the two. The 251E records 89.6 GB/s, a figure absent for the 150UL. This bandwidth advantage aligns with the 251E's higher core count, which demands more sustained memory throughput. The 150UL, with fewer cores and a 15 W power envelope, does not record a comparable bandwidth figure.

The integrated graphics differ. The 150UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the 251E uses UHD Graphics 770. The 150UL's Iris Xe configuration suggests a stronger integrated graphics solution, though the database does not include graphics benchmark scores to confirm performance deltas.

PCIe capabilities favor the 251E. It supports Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the 150UL supports Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. This is a two-generation jump in PCIe standard and a doubling of CPU-attached lanes, which affects expandability for discrete GPUs and NVMe storage.

Production status is Active for both, and both use the Intel Socket 1700. Release dates differ, with the 150UL dated 2024-04-07 and the 251E dated 2025-01-12, placing the 251E roughly nine months later in the market timeline.

The Verdict

The data presents two distinct design philosophies. The Intel Core 7 150UL is a 10-core, 12-thread part with a 15 W TDP, targeting efficiency-sensitive desktop scenarios. The Intel Core 7 251E is a 24-core, 32-thread part with a 65 W TDP, clearly aimed at multi-threaded throughput and heavier computational loads.

Benchmark results are absent, so the verdict must rely on specifications. The 251E leads in core count, thread count, base clock, boost clock, L3 cache, per-core L2 cache, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe generation, and PCIe lane count. It is ahead in nearly every measurable processing attribute. The 150UL leads in power efficiency by a 50 W TDP margin and carries the Iris Xe Graphics 96EU solution, which is likely a stronger integrated graphics option than the UHD Graphics 770, though no graphics benchmarks confirm this.

The 251E's launch MSRP is $384. The 150UL has no recorded launch MSRP. The 251E also has the higher percentile ranking tied at 50, meaning neither part has separated itself in the global CPU distribution. The choice between these processors depends entirely on workload type: the 251E for compute-heavy tasks, the 150UL for power-constrained or graphics-oriented desktop builds.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 10 (150UL) vs 24 (251E)
• Threads: 12 (150UL) vs 32 (251E)
• Base clock: 1.70 GHz (150UL) vs 2.10 GHz (251E)
• Boost clock: 5.00 GHz (150UL) vs 5.60 GHz (251E)
• TDP: 15 W (150UL) vs 65 W (251E)
• Codename: Raptor Lake-PS (150UL) vs Bartlett Lake (251E)
• Architecture: Raptor Lake (150UL) vs null (251E)
• Die size: not recorded (150UL) vs 257 mm² (251E)
• L2 cache per core: 1.25 MB (150UL) vs 2 MB (251E)
• L3 cache shared: 12 MB (150UL) vs 36 MB (251E)
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded (150UL) vs 89.6 GB/s (251E)
• ECC memory support: false (150UL) vs true (251E)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 8 Lanes (150UL) vs Gen 5, 16 Lanes (251E)
• Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 96EU (150UL) vs UHD Graphics 770 (251E)
• Release date: 2024-04-07 (150UL) vs 2025-01-12 (251E)
• Launch MSRP: not recorded (150UL) vs $384 (251E)
• Part number: unknown (150UL) vs SRQDUQ657 (251E)

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 251E wins in every compute-oriented category recorded. Its 24-core, 32-thread configuration positions it for rendering, compilation, scientific simulation, and heavy multitasking. The 5.60 GHz boost clock provides strong single-thread headroom. The 36 MB L3 cache reduces memory latency for large working sets. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth keeps 32 threads fed. ECC memory support makes it suitable for error-sensitive environments such as data validation tasks or long-running computations. The Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes allows high-bandwidth expansion devices to operate at full throughput.

The Intel Core 7 150UL wins in power efficiency. Its 15 W TDP is 50 W lower than the 251E, which matters for systems with limited cooling or strict energy budgets. The Iris Xe Graphics 96EU is the likely stronger integrated graphics solution, giving the 150UL an edge for builds that rely on the iGPU rather than a discrete card. The 150UL also carries a shorter release history, which may indicate a more recent efficiency tuning cycle within the Raptor Lake family.

The database shows no benchmark wins for either processor, so the use-case split is purely structural. The 251E is the throughput specialist. The 150UL is the low-power desktop option with superior integrated graphics potential. Neither part is unlocked for overclocking, and both target the desktop market segment. The 251E's larger die and newer codename suggest a more complex silicon design, while the 150UL's smaller power envelope points toward compact or thermally limited chassis configurations.