Intel Core 7 150UL vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Intel Core 7 150UL and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H are two very different processors from Intel, separated by process technology, architecture generation, and intended platform. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy between them, but the specifics matter for a builder deciding between a desktop Raptor Lake chip and a mobile Panther Lake chip. The Core Ultra 7 366H is the faster processor in every measured category, but the Core 7 150UL has its own profile worth examining.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results for the Core Ultra 7 366H are extensive and consistently strong. In the Cinebench suite, it scores 28,477 in R23 multi-core, 11,960 in R20 multi-core, and 2,870 in R15 multi-core. Its single-core results are equally solid: 4,020 in R23, 1,688 in R20, and 405 in R15. The Core 7 150UL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so direct numeric comparison is impossible. What can be stated is that the Core Ultra 7 366H holds an 87th percentile ranking versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41,263. The Core 7 150UL sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero, meaning it has no recorded performance data to compare against.

The Core Ultra 7 366H's PassMark results show a broad and balanced workload profile. Its multithread score is 33,429, while integer math hits 83,695 and floating point math reaches 103,615. Data compression scores 327,455, data encryption scores 25,845, and extended instructions score 26,901. Random string sorting produces 39,814, physics computes 2,880, and prime number finding results in 326. The single-thread score is 4,043. These numbers place it just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, both of which have average scores near 41,208 to 41,215. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X sits 0.3% higher at 41,376, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H trails by 0.7% at 40,967. This puts the 366H in a very tight pack with those rivals, all within a single percentage point.

Since the Core 7 150UL lacks any benchmark entries, the head-to-head comparison relies on architectural and specification differences rather than measured performance. The recorded data indicates the Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear winner on paper, but the absence of scores for the 150UL means the margin cannot be quantified.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 7 150UL uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It is a desktop segment chip on the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Panther Lake architecture, with the Panther Lake-H codename, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It is a mobile segment chip on the Intel BGA 2540 socket.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. That means the 366H has 6 more physical cores but 4 more threads overall, reflecting a different threading arrangement. The 150UL supports simultaneous multithreading to reach 12 threads from 10 cores, while the 366H has a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Core 7 150UL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 366H has more cache at every level, both per-core and shared.

Clock speeds show a trade-off. The Core 7 150UL has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a higher base clock of 2.00 GHz but a lower boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 150UL can reach a higher single-core boost frequency, while the 366H starts from a higher base frequency.

Memory support diverges. The Core 7 150UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. Neither chip supports ECC memory. PCIe capabilities differ as well: the 150UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ, with the 150UL using Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units and the 366H using Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The Core Ultra 7 366H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H) generation. The Core 7 150UL is from the Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation. Power envelopes are notably different: the 150UL has a TDP of 15 watts, while the 366H has a TDP of 25 watts. The 366H is also a newer part, with a release date in 2026, whereas the 150UL was released in 2024.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The 366H offers 6 additional physical cores and 4 additional threads.

Q: How does the process node compare between the two chips?

A: The Core 7 150UL is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 366H is built on Intel's 3 nm process. The 366H uses a more advanced manufacturing node.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 7 150UL has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra 7 366H's boost clock of 4.80 GHz. However, the 366H has a higher base clock of 2.00 GHz compared to 1.70 GHz.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 7 150UL supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each chip?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H ranks in the 87th percentile versus all CPUs. The Core 7 150UL ranks in the 50th percentile. The 366H also has an average benchmark score of 41,263, while the 150UL has no recorded average score.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 7 366H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 366H is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H for anyone needing measured performance. It has a 87th percentile ranking, a substantial average benchmark score of 41,263, and 16 cores with 18 MB of L3 cache. The mobile chip also uses a 3 nm process, supports PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes, and offers 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core 7 150UL cannot be evaluated on benchmark results because none are recorded. Its 50th percentile ranking and zero average score mean the database has no performance evidence for it.

The Core 7 150UL does hold advantages in a few specific areas. It has a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz, a lower TDP at 15 watts, and support for DDR4 memory. It also uses the desktop Socket 1700, which is a widely used platform. But without benchmark data, those advantages remain theoretical. The 366H's recorded scores across Cinebench and PassMark give it a concrete performance profile that the 150UL lacks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category. The Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 1.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP is 15 watts for the 150UL and 25 watts for the 366H. Sockets are Intel Socket 1700 for the 150UL and Intel BGA 2540 for the 366H. The 150UL uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, while the 366H uses Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process. L1 cache is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core, L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core, and L3 cache is 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the 150UL, DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the 366H, with the 366H having a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the 150UL and Gen 5 with 12 lanes for the 366H. Integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 96EU for the 150UL and Intel Xe3 Graphics for the 366H. Market segments are Desktop for the 150UL and Mobile for the 366H. Release dates are 2024 for the 150UL and 2026 for the 366H. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 366H wins on every measured performance metric in the database. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28,477, R20 multi-core score of 11,960, and R15 multi-core score of 2,870 all indicate strong multi-threaded capability. Its PassMark multithread score of 33,429 and single-thread score of 4,043 reinforce this. It also wins on core count, cache size at every level, process node, memory bandwidth, and PCIe generation. For workloads like data compression, floating point math, and integer math, the 366H has recorded scores of 327,455, 103,615, and 83,695 respectively. It is the processor for anyone who needs proven multi-core and single-core performance in a mobile form factor.

The Core 7 150UL wins on boost clock speed, reaching 5.00 GHz versus the 366H's 4.80 GHz. It also has a lower TDP of 15 watts, which could appeal to builders prioritizing power efficiency over raw throughput. Its support for DDR4 memory gives it compatibility with older, more established memory platforms. The desktop Socket 1700 offers a distinct installation path compared to the mobile BGA 2540. The 150UL also has a smaller L1 and L2 cache per core, but that is not a win; the 366H leads there. The 150UL's advantages are platform and frequency based, not performance based. For a low-power desktop build where DDR4 support and a high boost clock matter, the 150UL has a defined role. For any workload where benchmark scores are the deciding factor, the 366H is the only chip with data to support it.