Intel Core 7 160UL vs Intel Core 7 251E Comparison

Intel Core 7 160UL vs Intel Core 7 251E: A Study in Contrast

The database records two distinctly different Intel desktop processors sharing the Core 7 brand name. The Core 7 160UL is a Raptor Lake-PS part aimed at efficiency, while the Core 7 251E is a Bartlett Lake part focused on raw throughput. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance gap, but the specifications reveal that these chips target entirely different use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 7 160UL has a full set of recorded benchmark scores, while the Core 7 251E has no benchmark entries in the database. This means a direct score-by-score comparison is not possible from the recorded data. However, the available information for the 160UL allows for analysis of its standing relative to other processors.

The 160UL's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9386 and single-core score of 1325 indicate a processor that delivers solid multi-threaded work for its class. In Cinebench R20, the 160UL scores 3942 multi-core and 556 single-core, while in the older Cinebench R15 test, it achieves 946 multi-core and 133 single-core. These results show a consistent performance profile across generations of the Cinebench suite.

PassMark results for the 160UL show its strongest areas. The data compression score of 108953 is notably high, suggesting strong integer throughput. Integer math scores 47515, while floating point math reaches 25670. The multithread score of 11043 and single-thread score of 3391 round out the picture. The 160UL's percentile ranking of 69 places it above the median of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 14232.

The nearest rivals for the 160UL provide context for its performance. The AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277 on average, which is 0.3% higher than the 160UL's average. The Intel Core i5-10400F scores 14185, putting the 160UL 0.3% ahead. The Intel Xeon 6756E scores 14163, making the 160UL 0.5% faster. The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U scores 14320, meaning the 160UL trails by 0.6%. These deltas are all within a narrow band, indicating the 160UL performs in a tightly contested performance tier.

The 251E has no recorded benchmark scores, so its absolute performance cannot be stated from the database. The absence of data is itself a notable fact, as it means the 251E's performance characteristics must be inferred from its architectural specifications rather than measured results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 10 nm process node and are both manufactured by Intel, but they diverge significantly in core configuration and design philosophy.

The Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, part of the Core 7 generation for that family. It has 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with some efficiency cores lacking hyper-threading. The base clock is 1.80 GHz with a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The thermal design power is 15 watts, a very low figure for a desktop processor.

The Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, also assigned to the Core 7 generation but a different architectural family. It has 24 cores and 32 threads, a much larger core count. The base clock is 2.10 GHz with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The thermal design power is 65 watts, more than four times higher than the 160UL. The die size is recorded at 257 mm², while the 160UL has no recorded die size.

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both have an L1 cache of 80 KB per core. The L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core on the 160UL versus 2 MB per core on the 251E. The L3 cache is 12 MB shared on the 160UL versus 36 MB shared on the 251E. The 251E has triple the shared L3 cache.

Memory support is similar in type, with both supporting DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. However, the 251E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the 160UL has no recorded bandwidth figure. The 251E also supports ECC memory, which the 160UL does not.

PCIe connectivity shows a major difference. The 160UL uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes available from the CPU. The 251E uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, doubling the lane count and moving to the newer generation.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 160UL has Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the 251E has UHD Graphics 770. The 251E has a recorded launch MSRP of $384, while the 160UL has no launch price recorded.

Both processors use the Intel Socket 1700 and have locked multipliers. The 251E has a recorded part number of SRQDUQ657, while the 160UL's part number is listed as unknown. The 251E was released on January 13, 2025, while the 160UL was released on April 8, 2024.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear distinction between these two processors. The 160UL is designed for low-power operation with its 15 watt TDP, making it suitable for systems where heat and power consumption are primary concerns. Its 10 cores and 12 threads provide adequate multi-tasking capability, and its 5.20 GHz boost clock ensures responsive single-threaded performance when needed.

The 251E is a high-throughput processor with 24 cores and 32 threads, a 65 watt TDP, and a 5.60 GHz boost clock. Its 36 MB L3 cache and PCIe Gen 5 support indicate it is built for demanding workloads that benefit from large caches and fast I/O. The ECC memory support reinforces its positioning for reliability-sensitive applications.

The lack of benchmark data for the 251E prevents a direct performance comparison from the database. Given the core count difference of 14 cores and 20 threads, the 251E should offer substantially higher multi-threaded throughput, but the measured scores are not available to confirm this.

Users of the 251E get ECC memory support and a larger cache, which are meaningful advantages for workstation or server-like tasks. Users of the 160UL get a much lower TDP and Iris Xe graphics with more execution units, which benefits compact or passively cooled builds.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show the following differences between the two processors:

The Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads. The 160UL has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and boost of 5.20 GHz, while the 251E has a base of 2.10 GHz and boost of 5.60 GHz. The TDP is 15 watts for the 160UL versus 65 watts for the 251E.

The 160UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, while the 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename. The 160UL has an L2 cache of 1.25 MB per core and 12 MB shared L3, while the 251E has 2 MB per core L2 and 36 MB shared L3.

The 160UL uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes, while the 251E uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The 160UL has Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the 251E has UHD Graphics 770. The 251E supports ECC memory, which the 160UL does not.

The 251E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the 160UL does not have a bandwidth figure. The 251E has a die size of 257 mm², while the 160UL has no recorded die size. The 251E has a launch MSRP of $384 and part number SRQDUQ657, while the 160UL has no MSRP and an unknown part number.

The release dates differ, with the 160UL releasing in April 2024 and the 251E in January 2025.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core 7 160UL has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core 7 251E has a TDP of 65 watts.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Both support DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. However, the 251E supports ECC memory, while the 160UL does not.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Core 7 251E has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 7 160UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What PCIe versions do the two processors use?

A: The Core 7 160UL uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 7 251E uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 7 251E has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, which is higher than the Core 7 160UL's boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 160UL wins in efficiency. Its 15 watt TDP is dramatically lower than the 251E's 65 watt figure. This makes the 160UL the choice for systems where power draw and thermal output are constrained, such as small form factor desktops or always-on machines. The 160UL's Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units provides more graphics execution units than the 251E's UHD Graphics 770, which is an advantage for integrated-graphics workloads.

The 160UL also has a recorded benchmark presence, with an average score of 14232 and a percentile ranking of 69. Its nearest rivals are all within a 0.6% performance band, showing it competes closely with several mainstream processors.

The Core 7 251E wins in raw capability. Its 24 cores, 32 threads, and 5.60 GHz boost clock position it for heavily threaded workloads. The 36 MB L3 cache is three times larger than the 160UL's 12 MB, which benefits workloads with large working sets. The PCIe Gen 5 support with 16 lanes doubles the lane count and moves to a newer generation, enabling faster peripherals.

The 251E's ECC memory support is a clear win for data integrity in workstation environments. Its 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the 160UL has no recorded figure, indicates a higher-capacity memory subsystem. The 251E's 257 mm² die size reflects its larger core count and cache.

For workloads that need many threads, large cache, ECC reliability, or modern PCIe connectivity, the 251E is the processor the data points to. For workloads where power consumption is the limiting factor and integrated graphics performance matters, the 160UL is the better fit. The absence of benchmark scores for the 251E means its performance wins are theoretical from the recorded specifications, but those specifications strongly favor it in throughput-oriented scenarios.