Intel Core 7 160UL vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Intel Core 7 160UL and Intel Core Ultra 5 336H occupy very different positions in the desktop and mobile processor landscapes. The data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Core Ultra 5 336H winning every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. However, the two chips are built for entirely different platforms and use cases, which makes a simple performance ranking only part of the story.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 160UL does not win a single benchmark in the recorded head-to-head data. Across all 17 tested workloads, the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H delivers the higher score. The closest margin for the Core 7 160UL appears in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 5 336H leads by 23.4%. The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, with the Ultra 5 336H ahead by 83.3%.

The Core 7 160UL occupies a distinct niche as a 15 W desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700 with Raptor Lake architecture. Its low power envelope and desktop form factor make it suitable for compact or energy-conscious desktop builds, but the performance data does not favor it in any workload. The Core Ultra 5 336H, a 25 W mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540 with Panther Lake architecture, dominates in both single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks.

The Ultra 5 336H wins all 17 recorded benchmarks, including every Cinebench test, every PassMark workload, and both single-thread entries. Its average benchmark score is 34485 versus 14232 for the Core 7 160UL. The percentile ranking also favors the mobile chip: the Ultra 5 336H sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 160UL sits in the 69th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different manufacturing nodes. The Core 7 160UL uses Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on a 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process node difference is substantial and explains much of the performance gap.

Core counts also diverge sharply. The Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 7 160UL has hyperthreading, giving it 12 threads from 10 cores, while the Ultra 5 336H has no thread advantage, matching 16 threads to 16 cores. Despite having fewer physical cores, the Core 7 160UL still manages 12 threads, but the raw core count advantage for the Ultra 5 336H is clear.

Cache configurations differ as well. The Core 7 160UL 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 5 336H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches and bigger shared L3 on the Ultra 5 336H contribute to its higher single-thread and multi-thread scores.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. The Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, also on a dual-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Core 7 160UL does not have a recorded memory bandwidth figure in the database.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Core 7 160UL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 336H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The newer generation and higher lane count on the Ultra 5 336H give it more headroom for fast storage and expansion devices.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, without a recorded execution unit count. The market segment differs as well: the Core 7 160UL is a desktop part, while the Core Ultra 5 336H is a mobile part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent and large advantage for the Core Ultra 5 336H. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 336H scores 2418 against 946 for the Core 7 160UL, a delta of 60.9%. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 5 336H scores 341 against 133, also a 61% delta. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20: multi-core 10076 versus 3942, single-core 1422 versus 556, both with 60.9% deltas. Cinebench R23 repeats the result: multi-core 23991 versus 9386, single-core 3387 versus 1325, again with 60.9% deltas.

PassMark workloads show a broader range of margins. The smallest gap is in integer math, where the Ultra 5 336H scores 62070 against 47515 for the Core 7 160UL, a 23.4% lead. Single-thread performance is also relatively close: 4013 versus 3391, a 15.5% lead for the Ultra 5 336H. The same 15.5% delta appears for both PassMark single-thread entries, which record identical scores of 4013 and 3391 respectively.

Larger gaps appear in more specialized workloads. Data encryption shows the Ultra 5 336H at 21291 versus 7146, a 66.4% lead. Random string sorting has the Ultra 5 336H at 34402 versus 11843, a 65.6% lead. Floating point math shows 82415 versus 25670, a 68.9% lead. Physics scores 2682 versus 819, a 69.5% lead. Extended instructions show the biggest difference after prime numbers: 24542 versus 5832, a 76.2% lead. The largest gap is find prime numbers, with the Ultra 5 336H at 299 versus 50, an 83.3% lead.

The multi-thread PassMark score is 28545 for the Ultra 5 336H versus 11043 for the Core 7 160UL, a 61.3% lead. Data compression shows 280340 versus 108953, a 61.1% lead. Every recorded benchmark favors the Core Ultra 5 336H, and there is no workload in the database where the Core 7 160UL comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Despite the lower boost clock, the Ultra 5 336H wins every single-thread benchmark in the recorded data.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Core 7 160UL uses hyperthreading to reach 12 threads, but the Ultra 5 336H has more physical cores and no hyperthreading.

Q: How do the Cinebench multi-core scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H scores 23991 versus 9386 for the Intel Core 7 160UL, a 60.9% difference. The same 60.9% delta appears in Cinebench R15 (2418 versus 946) and Cinebench R20 (10076 versus 3942).

Q: What is the manufacturing process for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL is built on a 10 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is built on a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Core 7 160UL supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Core 7 160UL, with margins ranging from 15.5% in single-threaded PassMark to 83.3% in find prime numbers. The Ultra 5 336H also holds a higher average benchmark score of 34485 versus 14232, and a higher percentile ranking of 84 versus 69.

The Core 7 160UL is a desktop processor with a 15 W TDP on Intel Socket 1700, built on Raptor Lake with 10 nm process. Its only advantages in the recorded data are a higher boost clock (5.20 GHz versus 4.60 GHz) and support for DDR4 memory. Neither of those translates into a benchmark win.

The Core Ultra 5 336H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP on Intel BGA 2540, built on Panther Lake with 3 nm process. It offers more cores, more cache, faster PCIe, higher memory bandwidth, and a newer integrated graphics unit. The benchmark results confirm that the architectural advantages deliver real performance across every workload category.

For a desktop build on Socket 1700, the Core 7 160UL provides a low-power option with a high boost clock, but the data shows it falls far behind in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. For any application where performance matters, the Core Ultra 5 336H is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements. The only scenario where the Core 7 160UL makes sense is a desktop system that requires its specific socket and power envelope, and even then the performance trade-off is substantial.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 160UL | Intel Core Ultra 5 336H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.80 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2026-01-04 |

| Part Number | unknown | SA4RD |