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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for this comparison is one-sided: the Intel Core 7 150UL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has a full suite of 17 recorded measurements. The Core Ultra X9 378H therefore holds every available performance metric by default, with zero wins for the Core 7 150UL in the head-to-head record.

The Core Ultra X9 378H achieves an average benchmark score of 47,468 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database. This places it in direct competition with several high-end desktop processors. The nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T, which scores 47,697 and sits 0.5% ahead of the X9 378H. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 scores 47,527, a margin of 0.1% ahead. The Intel Core i7-13700KF scores 47,330, putting the X9 378H 0.3% ahead. The Intel Core i9-12900F scores 47,176, with the X9 378H leading by 0.6%. These margins are narrow across the board, indicating that the X9 378H sits in a tightly contested performance band where single-digit percentage differences separate competitors.

Looking at the individual benchmark categories for the X9 378H, the most striking result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the chip scores 32,553 points. This is a strong showing for a 16-thread processor, and it aligns with the high percentile ranking. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the score is 13,672, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, it reaches 3,281. The single-core results are equally consistent: Cinebench R23 single-core scores 4,595, Cinebench R20 single-core scores 1,929, and Cinebench R15 single-core scores 462.

In PassMark tests, the X9 378H shows a wide spread of capabilities. The data compression test yields 386,591 points, which is the highest raw score in the suite. Integer math scores 92,603, floating point math scores 114,500, and extended instructions (SIMD) scores 31,315. Data encryption reaches 29,840, and random string sorting hits 44,648. The multithread score is 38,298, while single-thread performance is recorded at 4,453 points. The physics test scores 3,404, and the prime number search test scores 357. These figures collectively paint a picture of a processor that is strong in both throughput-heavy workloads and latency-sensitive single-thread tasks.

Because the Core 7 150UL has no benchmark entries, the database cannot compute any relative performance deltas between the two processors. The wins tally is 0 for the Core 7 150UL and 0 for the Core Ultra X9 378H in the head-to-head benchmark section, since that section is empty. However, the absence of scores for the Core 7 150UL means that any comparison must rely on the specification and architecture differences documented below.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H?

A: The average benchmark score for the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is 47,468, which places it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The X9 378H is 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13700KF, 0.5% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T, and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-12900F.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 150UL have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark entries for the Intel Core 7 150UL, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0.

Q: What is the best multi-core result for the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H?

A: The highest multi-core score is 32,553 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, followed by 13,672 in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 3,281 in Cinebench R15 multi-core.

Q: What is the single-thread performance of the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H?

A: In PassMark single-thread tests, the X9 378H scores 4,453 points. In Cinebench, single-core scores are 4,595 (R23), 1,929 (R20), and 462 (R15).

Q: Which processor has a higher core count?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

The Verdict

Based strictly on recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is the only processor in this comparison with measurable performance. Its 89th percentile ranking and average score of 47,468 place it among competitive desktop and mobile processors, with margins of less than 1% against its four nearest rivals. For any workload where benchmark scores matter, the X9 378H is the clear choice from the available data.

The Intel Core 7 150UL, with no benchmark scores and a 50th percentile ranking, cannot be evaluated on performance grounds. Its average score is listed as 0, which does not reflect actual capability but rather the absence of recorded measurements. The database offers no evidence that the Core 7 150UL can match the X9 378H in any tested category.

For users selecting between these two processors, the data points exclusively to the Core Ultra X9 378H for applications that benefit from high multi-thread throughput, such as rendering, data compression, and scientific computation. The X9 378H also delivers strong single-thread results, as shown by its 4,595 Cinebench R23 single-core score and 4,453 PassMark single-thread score. The Core 7 150UL has no recorded results to support any competing claim.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The Intel Core 7 150UL uses 10 cores with 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H uses 16 cores with 16 threads. The base clock of the Core 7 150UL is 1.70 GHz, and the X9 378H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz. Both processors share the same boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Thermal design power differs significantly: the Core 7 150UL is rated at 15 watts, while the X9 378H is rated at 25 watts. The socket types are incompatible: the Core 7 150UL uses Intel Socket 1700, and the X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Core 7 150UL is classified as a desktop processor, while the X9 378H is classified as a mobile processor.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 7 150UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the X9 378H supports LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The X9 378H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the Core 7 150UL has no bandwidth figure in the database. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 7 150UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), and the X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 7 150UL featuring Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, and the X9 378H featuring Arc B390 graphics.

The release dates are separated by roughly two years: the Core 7 150UL launched on 2024-04-07, and the X9 378H launched on 2026-04-03. Both processors are listed as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the two processors is substantial. The Intel Core 7 150UL is built on the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, belonging to the Core 7 generation. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename and belongs to the Ultra X9 generation, under the Core Ultra Series 3 family.

The manufacturing process differs by three nodes: the Core 7 150UL is fabricated on a 10 nm process, while the X9 378H is fabricated on a 3 nm process. Both are produced by Intel. The cache hierarchy shows notable differences. The Core 7 150UL has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, an L2 cache of 1.25 MB per core, and a shared L3 cache of 12 MB. The X9 378H has an L1 cache of 192 KB per core, an L2 cache of 2.5 MB per core, and a shared L3 cache of 18 MB. The X9 378H therefore has more than double the L1 and L2 per core, and 50% more L3 cache.

The architecture differences extend to the memory controller, with the Core 7 150UL supporting older DDR4 and DDR5 modules, while the X9 378H is limited to LPDDR5X, a lower-power mobile standard. The PCIe generation also advances from Gen 4 on the Core 7 150UL to Gen 5 on the X9 378H, though the X9 378H has fewer CPU-only lanes (4 versus 8). The integrated graphics architecture moves from Iris Xe (96 execution units) on the Core 7 150UL to Arc B390 on the X9 378H.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins in every benchmarked category. The multi-core results are particularly strong: the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,553 and the PassMark multithread score of 38,298 indicate that the X9 378H excels in heavily threaded workloads such as 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific simulations. The data compression score of 386,591 and the floating point math score of 114,500 further support this, as these tasks scale well with core count and cache capacity.

The X9 378H also wins in single-thread performance, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4,453 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4,595. This suggests strong per-core efficiency, likely aided by the 3 nm process and larger per-core caches. For interactive workloads, database operations, and general desktop responsiveness, the X9 378H shows no weakness in the data.

The Intel Core 7 150UL has no benchmark scores in the database, so there is no measured evidence of any workload category where it wins. Its 50th percentile ranking, which is the default value for unmeasured CPUs, does not indicate a competitive position. The lower 15 watt TDP and desktop socket suggest the Core 7 150UL may be intended for low-power or compact desktop systems, but the database provides no performance data to confirm any advantage in such scenarios.

In practical terms, the X9 378H is suited for mobile workstations that need high throughput in a 25 watt envelope, while the Core 7 150UL appears oriented toward low-power desktop builds, but without recorded benchmarks, its performance profile remains undocumented. The data supports the X9 378H as the superior choice for any measured workload.