Intel Core 7 160HL vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a decisive split between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H holds the 84th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Intel Core 7 160HL sits at the 50th percentile. The Core Ultra 5 338H carries an average benchmark score of 33,989, placing it within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12800HX. The Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals in the database, meaning no direct performance comparison can be established from the data. The Core Ultra 5 338H is the only one of the two with measured results, and those results confirm it as a mid-range to upper-mid-range mobile processor. The Core 7 160HL, despite its higher core count and boost clock, remains unquantified. Any buyer choosing between these two based on the database must recognize that the Core Ultra 5 338H offers verified performance data, while the Core 7 160HL offers none.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Core 7 160HL leads by 2 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock differences?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H boosts to 4.70 GHz. The Core 7 160HL has a 0.50 GHz advantage in peak frequency.

Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core 7 160HL uses a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 5 338H has the smaller node by 7 nm.

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H records a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,044 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,180. The Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores, so no comparison is possible from the data.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Core 7 160HL supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Core 7 160HL has no memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different architectural generations and target different market segments. The Intel Core 7 160HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, part of the Core 7 generation. It is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 3 generation, and it is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540. The process node difference is substantial: the Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm node, while the Core 7 160HL uses a 10 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the 3 nm node allows the Core Ultra 5 338H to pack more transistors per area, which is consistent with its higher per-core L1 and L2 cache allocations.

Cache organization differs significantly. The Core 7 160HL provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 338H provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 338H has more than double the L1 cache per core and 0.5 MB more L2 per core, but the Core 7 160HL has 6 MB more L3 cache in total. The integrated graphics also diverge: the Core 7 160HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370 graphics. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X memory, while the Core 7 160HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both are dual-channel and neither supports ECC memory.

The Core Ultra 5 338H has a part number SA4REQ9EW, while the Core 7 160HL has an unknown part number. Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning neither supports overclocking. The Core Ultra 5 338H was released on 2026-01-04, and the Core 7 160HL was released on 2024-04-07. The Core Ultra 5 338H is the newer design by roughly a year and a half.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals clear divergences. The Core 7 160HL has 14 cores versus 12 cores for the Core Ultra 5 338H. Thread counts are 20 versus 12, a difference of 8 threads. Base clocks differ: the Core 7 160HL runs at 2.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 338H runs at 1.90 GHz, a 0.60 GHz gap at the base. Boost clocks also differ: 5.20 GHz versus 4.70 GHz, a 0.50 GHz gap. Thermal design power is 45 watts for the Core 7 160HL and 25 watts for the Core Ultra 5 338H, meaning the Core 7 160HL draws 20 watts more at its rated TDP.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540. Process nodes are 10 nm versus 3 nm. Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 7 160HL, only LPDDR5X for the Core Ultra 5 338H. PCIe support differs: Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core 7 160HL, Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 338H. Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 96EU versus Arc B370. Market segments differ: Desktop versus Mobile. Release dates differ: 2024-04-07 versus 2026-01-04. The Core Ultra 5 338H has a measured memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, while the Core 7 160HL has none recorded. The Core Ultra 5 338H has an average benchmark score of 33,989 and an 84th percentile ranking, while the Core 7 160HL has zero benchmark scores and a 50th percentile ranking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the database for these two processors. The head-to-head table is empty, with zero wins for each side. The only benchmark data available belongs to the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 16,331, and its single-core score is 2,044. In Cinebench R20, it scores 10,213 multicore and 1,441 single-core. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2,504 multicore and 305 single-core. The PassMark suite shows a multithread score of 28,717, a single-thread score of 4,180, integer math at 64,934, floating-point math at 84,067, extended instructions at 23,906, data compression at 276,539, data encryption at 21,367, physics at 2,697, random string sorting at 34,082, and prime number finding at 304.

The Core 7 160HL has no benchmark scores in any test. The database contains no Cinebench, PassMark, or any other performance metric for it. Its percentile of 50 is a default placement, not a measured result. Its average benchmark score of zero confirms the absence of data. Therefore, no head-to-head comparison can be made with exact numbers. The only meaningful statement is that the Core Ultra 5 338H has a verified average score of 33,989, placing it 0.3% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12800HX, 0.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6353P, and 0.7% behind the AMD EPYC 4244P. The Core 7 160HL has no comparable figures.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in every category that has recorded data. It has verified benchmark scores across Cinebench and PassMark, a measured memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, a smaller 3 nm process node, PCIe Gen 5 support, a newer release date, and an 84th percentile ranking. Its single-thread performance, as measured by PassMark at 4,180, indicates strong per-core capability despite a lower core count. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16,331 shows it can handle multithreaded workloads effectively within a 25 watt TDP. Its nearest rivals, all within 0.7% of its average score, confirm it sits in a competitive cluster of processors.

The Intel Core 7 160HL wins on paper specifications that are not backed by measurements. It has more cores (14 versus 12), more threads (20 versus 12), a higher base clock (2.50 GHz versus 1.90 GHz), a higher boost clock (5.20 GHz versus 4.70 GHz), a larger L3 cache (24 MB versus 18 MB), a higher TDP (45 watts versus 25 watts), and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. It also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes, double the lane count of the Core Ultra 5 338H's 4 lanes. However, none of these specifications have been validated by benchmark results in the database. The Core 7 160HL's desktop socket and higher power envelope suggest it could deliver more sustained multicore throughput, but the data does not confirm this.

The use-case split is therefore uneven. For anyone relying on verified performance data, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the only option with evidence. Its mobile form factor, 25 watt TDP, LPDDR5X memory support, and Arc B370 graphics suit compact systems where power efficiency and measured performance matter. The Core 7 160HL, with its desktop socket, 45 watt TDP, and DDR4/DDR5 flexibility, targets traditional desktop builds, but its lack of benchmark data means the database cannot confirm its relative standing. The percentile gap, 84 versus 50, reflects data availability as much as performance. The Core Ultra 5 338H is the documented performer; the Core 7 160HL remains an unverified specification sheet.