Intel Core 7 150UL vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Intel Core 7 150UL and Intel Core Ultra X7 368H occupy very different positions in the database. The Core Ultra X7 368H holds a recorded average benchmark score of 40518, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 7 150UL has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile. This gap in measured performance is substantial, but the two processors also differ fundamentally in architecture, platform, and intended use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra X7 368H is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark results in the database, so direct comparisons rely on its measured scores. In Cinebench R23, the Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28221 in multi-core and 3984 in single-core. For context, these scores place it in the 87th percentile overall, and its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core 7 253PE (average score 40557, delta -0.1%), Intel Core 5 223PE (average score 40585, delta -0.2%), AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (average score 40431, delta +0.2%), and Intel Xeon 6507P (average score 40426, delta +0.2%). This means the Core Ultra X7 368H trades blows with those four processors within a 0.2% margin, indicating a tight cluster of comparable performance.

In Cinebench R20, the Core Ultra X7 368H records 11852 multi-core and 1673 single-core. In the older Cinebench R15, it scores 2844 multi-core and 401 single-core. These results show consistent scaling across Cinebench versions, with the multi-core scores roughly doubling from R15 to R20 and then more than doubling from R20 to R23, reflecting the test's increasing workload demands.

The PassMark suite gives a broader picture. The Core Ultra X7 368H achieves 32956 in multithread and 4005 in single-thread. In specific workloads, it scores 105681 in floating point math, 88083 in integer math, 312927 in data compression, and 25228 in data encryption. Extended instructions score 25669, while random string sorting hits 38093. The physics score is 2857, and the find prime numbers score is 321. These numbers indicate particularly strong throughput in compression and floating-point tasks, with encryption and extended instruction workloads showing more moderate results.

Because the Core 7 150UL has no benchmarks in the database, the head-to-head comparison is one-sided. The data shows that the Core Ultra X7 368H delivers recorded performance that lands it in the upper tier of all CPUs, while the Core 7 150UL has no measured scores to compare. Any performance advantage for the Core 7 150UL cannot be substantiated from the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures. The Core 7 150UL uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses Panther Lake, with the Panther Lake-H codename, built on a 3 nm process node. This process difference is significant: the 3 nm node is substantially more advanced than the 10 nm node, which typically allows for higher density and better power efficiency.

The Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Core Ultra X7 368H has more physical cores but no hyper-threading, whereas the Core 7 150UL has fewer cores but supports hyper-threading, giving it 12 threads from 10 cores. The thread count difference is modest (12 vs 16), but the core count difference is larger.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 7 150UL has 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 X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 368H has both larger per-core caches and a larger total L3 cache.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 7 150UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 7 150UL has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 7 150UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra X7 368H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra X7 368H has a higher PCIe generation but fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 150UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390. The Core Ultra X7 368H also has a different socket (Intel BGA 2540) compared to the Core 7 150UL (Intel Socket 1700), reflecting their desktop versus mobile market segments. The Core 7 150UL is a desktop part, while the Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: Both processors have the same boost clock of 5.00 GHz, according to the recorded data. The base clocks differ, however: the Core 7 150UL runs at 1.70 GHz, while the Core Ultra X7 368H runs at 2.00 GHz.

Q: How does the Core Ultra X7 368H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 40518 on average, which is within 0.2% of all four nearest rivals. It is 0.1% behind the Intel Core 7 253PE, 0.2% behind the Intel Core 5 223PE, 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6507P.

Q: What is the thread count difference between the two processors?

A: The Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 6 more cores but only 4 more threads, because the Core 7 150UL uses hyper-threading.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. According to the database, neither processor supports ECC memory. Both are listed with ECC memory as false.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 7 150UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 368H also has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both processors have the multiplier unlocked flag set to false, meaning neither is factory-unlocked for overclocking according to the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications. Core count: 10 for the Core 7 150UL versus 16 for the Core Ultra X7 368H. Thread count: 12 versus 16. Base clock: 1.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clock is identical at 5.00 GHz. TDP: 15 W versus 25 W. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540. Architecture: Raptor Lake versus Panther Lake. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm.

Cache specifications differ across all levels. L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache: 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus LPDDR5X only. Memory bandwidth: no recorded value for the Core 7 150UL versus 153.6 GB/s for the Core Ultra X7 368H. PCIe: Gen 4 with 8 lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 96EU versus Arc B390. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Release date: 2024-04-07 versus 2026-01-04.

The Core Ultra X7 368H has a part number (SA4R7Q9EJ), while the Core 7 150UL has an unknown part number. The Core Ultra X7 368H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, while the Core 7 150UL has no series listed. Neither processor has a launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X7 368H wins on every recorded benchmark measure because it is the only one with benchmark data. Its 87th percentile ranking and average score of 40518 place it in a competitive tier with the Intel Core 7 253PE, Intel Core 5 223PE, AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, and Intel Xeon 6507P. In multi-core workloads, the Cinebench R23 score of 28221 indicates strong parallel throughput, which suits rendering, compilation, and content creation tasks. The PassMark multithread score of 32956 reinforces this. Single-thread performance is also solid, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3984 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4005, which supports responsiveness in lightly threaded applications.

The Core 7 150UL has no recorded wins in the database. Its 50th percentile placement is the default baseline, and without benchmark scores, the data cannot support any performance advantage. However, the Core 7 150UL does have attributes that matter for specific use cases. It is a desktop part with a 15 W TDP and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which offers flexibility in platform choice. Its PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes provides more CPU-attached lanes than the Core Ultra X7 368H's 4 lanes, which could benefit systems with multiple expansion devices. The Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm node is a mature platform, and the Intel Socket 1700 compatibility may align with existing desktop motherboards.

For mobile systems, the Core Ultra X7 368H is the clear pick from the data. It has a 25 W TDP, which is higher than the Core 7 150UL's 15 W, but it delivers recorded performance that the Core 7 150UL cannot match in the database. The 3 nm process node and Panther Lake architecture represent a newer generation with a higher memory bandwidth figure of 153.6 GB/s. The Arc B390 integrated graphics also differ from the Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded for either.

The Verdict

The recorded data points decisively to the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H as the higher-performing processor. Its average benchmark score of 40518 places it in the 87th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.2% of that score, meaning it performs on par with the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and Intel Xeon 6507P. The Core Ultra X7 368H delivers strong results across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and the PassMark suite, covering both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. For any task that benefits from measured CPU performance, the Core Ultra X7 368H is the choice supported by the database.

The Intel Core 7 150UL, by contrast, has no recorded benchmarks and sits at the 50th percentile. This means the database cannot substantiate any performance claims for it. Its advantages are structural: a desktop form factor, dual memory support for DDR4 and DDR5, a lower 15 W TDP, and 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. These features may appeal to a builder seeking a low-power desktop part on a specific socket, but the lack of benchmark data means its actual performance relative to the Core Ultra X7 368H is unknown.

Users who need a mobile processor with verified performance should select the Core Ultra X7 368H. Users building a desktop system who prioritize platform flexibility, particularly DDR4 compatibility and more PCIe lanes, may consider the Core 7 150UL, but they should be aware that the database records no performance scores for it. The Core Ultra X7 368H is the only one of the two with measured results, and those results are competitive with the top processors in its vicinity.