Intel Core 7 150UL vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the Intel Core 7 150UL and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H?

A: The Intel Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H boosts to 5.10 GHz, slightly higher than the Intel Core 7 150UL's 5.00 GHz boost.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory with a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Intel Core 7 150UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, but its bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

Q: How do these processors compare in terms of production process node?

A: The Intel Core 7 150UL uses a 10 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses a 3 nm process.

Q: What integrated graphics do these processors use?

A: The Intel Core 7 150UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Arc B390.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each processor in the database?

A: The Intel Core 7 150UL sits at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H ranks at the 88th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and target different market segments. The Intel Core 7 150UL is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS variant, and is classified as a desktop part. It uses a 10 nm process node from Intel's foundry. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H belongs to the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, and is a mobile processor. It uses a 3 nm process node, also from Intel's foundry.

Core and cache structures differ substantially. The Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, with 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 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Panther Lake part indicate a different core design philosophy, with more cache resources allocated to each individual core.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 7 150UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, and records a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 7 150UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU.

The integrated graphics solutions are not comparable in architecture. The Core 7 150UL pairs with Iris Xe Graphics featuring 96 execution units. The Core Ultra X9 388H includes the Arc B390. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both are locked to a fixed multiplier.

The Core Ultra X9 388H has a higher base clock of 2.10 GHz versus 1.70 GHz on the Core 7 150UL, and a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. Thermal design power is higher on the mobile part at 25 W, while the desktop part is rated at 15 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the clear performance leader across every benchmark category recorded in the database. Its 16 cores, larger cache hierarchy, and higher clock speeds translate into decisive wins in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The processor also ranks at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, placing it well above the Core 7 150UL's 50th percentile.

The Core 7 150UL does have one structural advantage: it is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, which typically allows for more flexible cooling and system integration compared to a mobile BGA package. Its 15 W TDP is considerably lower than the Core Ultra X9 388H's 25 W, which may be relevant for systems where thermal output is a constraint. The desktop part also supports DDR4 memory, which can be a compatibility advantage in existing systems, though the database does not record performance numbers for either processor's memory controller.

For workloads that rely on single-thread performance, the Core Ultra X9 388H wins decisively. The PassMark single-thread score of 4280 against an unrecorded score for the Core 7 150UL means the desktop part cannot compete on this metric. For multi-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra X9 388H's 16 cores and 16 threads versus 10 cores and 12 threads gives it a substantial lead in raw parallel throughput.

The Core 7 150UL's only meaningful territory is in low-power desktop configurations where its 15 W TDP and socket compatibility matter more than raw performance. The database records no benchmark wins for the Core 7 150UL, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has wins in every recorded test.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 10 (Core 7 150UL) versus 16 (Core Ultra X9 388H)
• Threads: 12 versus 16
• Base clock: 1.70 GHz versus 2.10 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.00 GHz versus 5.10 GHz
• TDP: 15 W versus 25 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540
• Architecture: Raptor Lake versus Panther Lake
• Codename: Raptor Lake-PS versus Panther Lake
• Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 versus LPDDR5X
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded versus 153.6 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 4, 8 lanes versus Gen 5, 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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors. However, the Core Ultra X9 388H has a full set of recorded benchmark scores, while the Core 7 150UL has none. This means every comparison must be drawn from the Core Ultra X9 388H's absolute scores and its percentile position.

The Core Ultra X9 388H achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18911 and a single-core score of 2200.5. In Cinebench R20, it scores 13101 multi-core and 1849 single-core. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2955 multi-core and 309.5 single-core. These scores place the processor at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44466.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for the Core Ultra X9 388H's positioning. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D has an average score of 44573, which is 0.2% higher than the Core Ultra X9 388H. The Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342, 0.3% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44309, 0.4% lower. The Intel Core i5-13600 scores 44240, 0.5% lower. The Core Ultra X9 388H therefore sits in a tight cluster near the top of this performance band, effectively matching these four rivals within a 0.5% margin.

In PassMark workloads, the Core Ultra X9 388H records 36811 for multi-threaded performance, 4280 for single-thread performance, 112550 for floating point math, 90882 for integer math, 361763 for data compression, 28490 for data encryption, 29943 for extended instructions, 358 for finding prime numbers, 3226 for physics, and 44010 for random string sorting. These are the only recorded performance figures for either processor in the comparison.

The Core 7 150UL's absence from the benchmark records means its percentile ranking of 50 is the only performance indicator available. The Core Ultra X9 388H's 88th percentile ranking represents a substantial gap in the database's overall performance distribution.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the superior processor by every measured performance metric in the database. Its 16 cores, 16 threads, 3 nm process node, larger cache hierarchy, and higher clock speeds produce benchmark scores that place it at the 88th percentile among all CPUs. The Core 7 150UL, with 10 cores, 12 threads, a 10 nm process, and no recorded benchmark scores, sits at the 50th percentile.

The Core Ultra X9 388H's nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, Intel Core i9-13950HX, AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, and Intel Core i5-13600, all fall within a 0.5% performance band of its average score. This indicates the Core Ultra X9 388H is competitive with top-tier desktop and mobile processors from both AMD and Intel, despite being a mobile part.

The Core 7 150UL is a low-power desktop processor with a 15 W TDP and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory. Its market segment is desktop, and its socket is Intel Socket 1700. For systems that require a socketed desktop processor with modest thermal requirements, it may be a reasonable choice, but the database records no performance data to support any performance claims.

Users who need maximum processing power, particularly for multi-threaded workloads such as rendering, compilation, or data processing, should select the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H based on its recorded benchmark scores and high percentile ranking. Users who require a low-power desktop processor with socket compatibility may consider the Core 7 150UL, but they should recognize that its performance level is unquantified in the database. The data clearly favors the Core Ultra X9 388H in all measured categories.