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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins every recorded benchmark in the database, and the margins are substantial across most workloads. The Core 7 160UL does not take a single test in the head-to-head set, with the Ultra 5 leading by percentages ranging from 18.9% to 83.6%.

The smallest gap appears in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Ultra 5 scores 4180 against the Core 7's 3391, a lead of 18.9%. That is still a meaningful single-core advantage, but it is the closest contest of the entire comparison. The same 18.9% margin appears for the duplicate passmark_singlethread entry, confirming consistency in the measurement.

Multi-threaded rendering shows a much larger separation. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 delivers 16331 points versus 9386 for the Core 7, a 42.5% advantage. The older Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows an even wider gap: 10213 against 3942, a 61.4% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the same pattern, with the Ultra 5 at 2504 and the Core 7 at 946, a 62.2% deficit for the older chip.

Single-core Cinebench results follow the same direction but with varying intensity. The R23 single-core test gives the Ultra 5 a 35.2% lead (2044 versus 1325). R20 single-core shows a 61.4% gap (1441 versus 556), and R15 single-core shows a 56.4% gap (305 versus 133). The single-thread PassMark numbers tell a slightly different story, with only an 18.9% difference, suggesting the Core 7's 5.20 GHz boost clock helps it stay closer in lightly threaded integer work.

The largest single margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 scores 304 against 50, a 83.6% advantage. This test often amplifies architectural efficiency differences, and the Panther Lake design clearly holds a commanding lead here. PassMark extended instructions also shows a huge gap: 23906 versus 5832, a 75.6% difference. Floating-point math follows at 84067 versus 25670, a 69.5% lead, and physics simulation shows 2697 versus 819, a 69.6% gap.

Data compression and encryption workloads reinforce the pattern. The Ultra 5 compresses data at 276539 compared to 108953, a 60.6% lead, and encrypts at 21367 against 7146, a 66.6% advantage. Integer math is the second-closest result overall: 64934 versus 47515, a 26.8% gap. Random string sorting shows the Ultra 5 ahead by 65.3%, with 34082 against 11843. The PassMark multi-thread score gives the Ultra 5 a 61.5% lead, 28717 versus 11043.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall positioning. The Core Ultra 5 338H sits at 33989, while the Core 7 160UL sits at 14232. In the database percentile rankings, the Ultra 5 places at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 places at the 69th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 include the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H with an average score of 34083 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i7-12800HX at 33875 (0.3% lower), and the AMD EPYC 4244P at 34220 (0.7% higher). For the Core 7, the nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U at 14320 (0.6% higher), the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277 (0.3% higher), and the Intel Core i5-10400F at 14185 (0.3% lower).

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the stronger processor in every measured category. There is no benchmark in the comparison where the Core 7 160UL comes out ahead, and in most tests the Ultra 5's margin is massive, often exceeding 60%. The only area where the Core 7 narrows the gap is PassMark single-thread performance, where the Ultra 5 still leads by 18.9%. That single result does little to offset the overwhelming multi-thread deficit.

For workloads that rely on parallel execution, rendering, or heavy compute, the Ultra 5 is the obvious choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16331 is 74% higher than the Core 7's 9386. Its PassMark multi-thread score of 28717 is 160% higher. The data compression, encryption, and extended instruction results all show the Ultra 5 delivering roughly two to three times the throughput of the Core 7.

The Core 7 160UL is not without a role, though it is a narrow one. Its 15 W TDP is lower than the Ultra 5's 25 W TDP, and it uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform with DDR4 and DDR5 memory support. The Ultra 5 is a mobile BGA part with LPDDR5X memory support. The Core 7 targets desktop systems where a lower power envelope and socket flexibility matter more than raw throughput. The data does not show any performance reason to choose it, but the platform characteristics may suit specific system designs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in all compute categories. For single-thread responsiveness, the PassMark single-thread score of 4180 versus 3391 gives it an 18.9% edge. For multi-core work, the Cinebench R23 result of 16331 versus 9386 gives it a 42.5% edge. For encryption, compression, floating-point math, prime number finding, extended instructions, and physics, the Ultra 5 leads by margins between 26.8% and 83.6%. Any application that stresses the CPU, whether through rendering, simulation, data processing, or compiled code execution, will favor the Ultra 5.

The Core 7 160UL does not have a single benchmark win. Its strengths are structural rather than performance-based. It uses a 10 nm process node against the Ultra 5's 3 nm node, but that does not translate into a performance advantage in the recorded tests. Its 5.20 GHz boost clock is higher than the Ultra 5's 4.70 GHz, and the single-thread PassMark result of 3391 shows it is not far behind in lightly threaded integer workloads. Still, the Ultra 5's higher per-core efficiency at a lower boost clock produces better single-thread scores anyway.

The Core 7 also supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 5 supports only LPDDR5X. The Core 7's PCIe Gen 4 interface with 8 CPU lanes differs from the Ultra 5's PCIe Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. These platform differences matter for system builders, but they do not change the benchmark outcomes.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has an average benchmark score of 33989, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has an average score of 14232.

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 5 338H in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H scores 16331, which is 42.5% higher than the Core 7 160UL's 9386.

Q: Is the Core 7 160UL better in any benchmark?

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 338H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark entries, with the closest margin being 18.9% in PassMark single-thread.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 338H scores 304 versus 50, a difference of 83.6%.

Q: How do the two compare in data encryption?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H scores 21367 in PassMark data encryption, which is 66.6% higher than the Core 7 160UL's 7146.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor in the database?

A: For the Core Ultra 5 338H, the nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H with an average score of 34083, 0.3% higher. For the Core 7 160UL, the nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U with an average score of 14320, 0.6% higher.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Intel Core 7 160UL uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, built by Intel, and belongs to the Raptor Lake-PS generation. It has 10 cores and 12 threads, with 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. Its boost clock reaches 5.20 GHz from a base clock of 1.80 GHz, and its TDP is 15 W.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, also built by Intel, and belongs to the Panther Lake-H generation. It has 12 cores and 12 threads, with 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. Its boost clock reaches 4.70 GHz from a base clock of 1.90 GHz, and its TDP is 25 W.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Ultra 5 uses Arc B370 graphics. The Ultra 5's smaller process node and larger per-core caches likely contribute to its substantial benchmark advantage, though the recorded data does not isolate individual architectural factors.

Specification Differences

The Core 7 160UL is a desktop processor using Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 338H is a mobile processor using Intel BGA 2540. The Core 7 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the Ultra 5 supports LPDDR5X in a dual-channel configuration with a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Core 7 has no listed memory bandwidth figure.

PCIe support also differs. The Core 7 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 provides PCIe Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Both processors have ECC memory disabled and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7's part number is listed as unknown, while the Ultra 5's part number is SA4REQ9EW. The Core 7 was released on 2024-04-07, and the Ultra 5 was released on 2026-01-04. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the database. The Ultra 5 has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 7 has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Ultra 5's base clock is higher at 1.90 GHz versus 1.80 GHz, but the Core 7's boost clock is higher at 5.20 GHz versus 4.70 GHz.