Intel Core 7 160UL vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between the Intel Core 7 160UL and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core Ultra X7 368H takes the win. The magnitude of the advantage varies considerably by workload, but no test favors the Core 7 160UL.

In Cinebench multi-core tests, the Core Ultra X7 368H delivers scores of 2844 in R15, 11852 in R20, and 28221 in R23. The Core 7 160UL records 946, 3942, and 9386 respectively. These represent deltas of 66.7% in favor of the Core Ultra X7 368H across all three multi-core Cinebench iterations. The consistency of this margin across different Cinebench versions suggests a stable performance advantage in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story. The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 401 in R15, 1673 in R20, and 3984 in R23. The Core 7 160UL manages 133, 556, and 1325 respectively. The deltas are 66.8%, 66.8%, and 66.7% in favor of the Core Ultra X7 368H. This near-identical percentage across all three versions indicates that the per-core performance gap is consistent and not workload-dependent within Cinebench.

PassMark integer math shows the narrowest relative gap of the entire benchmark suite. The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 88083 against 47515 for the Core 7 160UL, a delta of 46.1%. While still a substantial advantage, this is the smallest margin recorded in the head-to-head data. The Core Ultra X7 368H leads by a larger margin in floating-point math, scoring 105681 against 25670, a delta of 75.7%. Extended instructions show an even bigger gap, with 25669 versus 5832, a delta of 77.3%.

The largest single delta in the dataset appears in PassMark find prime numbers. The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 321, while the Core 7 160UL scores 50. That is a delta of 84.4%. This workload appears to be particularly sensitive to the architectural differences between the two processors.

Data compression and encryption results continue the pattern. The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 312927 in data compression versus 108953, a delta of 65.2%. In data encryption, the Core Ultra X7 368H scores 25228 against 7146, a delta of 71.7%. Multithreaded PassMark performance shows 32956 for the Core Ultra X7 368H and 11043 for the Core 7 160UL, a delta of 66.5%. Physics results show 2857 versus 819, a delta of 71.3%. Random string sorting shows 38093 versus 11843, a delta of 68.9%.

The closest overall result in the dataset is PassMark single-thread performance. The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 4005, and the Core 7 160UL scores 3391. The delta is 15.3%. This is the only benchmark where the Core Ultra X7 368H's advantage falls below 46%. Single-thread performance is the area where the two processors are most comparable, though the Core Ultra X7 368H still holds a clear lead.

The average benchmark score in the database places the Core Ultra X7 368H at 40518 and the Core 7 160UL at 14232. The Core Ultra X7 368H sits at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 7 160UL sits at the 69th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra X7 368H include the Intel Core 7 253PE with an average score of 40557 and a delta of 0.1%, the Intel Core 5 223PE with 40585 and a delta of 0.2%, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H with 40431 and a delta of 0.2%, and the Intel Xeon 6507P with 40426 and a delta of 0.2%. The Core 7 160UL's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C with 14277 and a delta of 0.3%, the Intel Core i5-10400F with 14185 and a delta of 0.3%, the Intel Xeon 6756E with 14163 and a delta of 0.5%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U with 14320 and a delta of 0.6%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data identifies two processors in different performance tiers. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H outperforms the Intel Core 7 160UL in every recorded test. The average benchmark score is roughly 2.8 times higher for the Core Ultra X7 368H. Its 87th percentile ranking versus the 69th percentile of the Core 7 160UL places it in a higher overall performance class.

The Core Ultra X7 368H is the appropriate choice for workloads that stress multi-core performance, such as rendering, data compression, encryption, and physics simulations. The deltas of 65% to 84% in these areas indicate a substantial throughput advantage. The Core Ultra X7 368H also leads in single-thread performance, though by a smaller margin of 15.3% in PassMark and 66.7% to 66.8% in Cinebench single-core tests.

The Core 7 160UL, with its 10 cores and 12 threads, delivers average benchmark scores comparable to the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C and the Intel Core i5-10400F. Its performance profile places it in the lower midrange. For tasks that fit within its capabilities, such as light productivity or basic multi-threaded work, the data shows it can handle those loads. But it cannot match the Core Ultra X7 368H in any measured metric.

The Core Ultra X7 368H's nearest rivals, the Intel Core 7 253PE and the Intel Core 5 223PE, have average scores within 0.2% of its 40518. This indicates that the Core Ultra X7 368H sits in a competitive cluster of processors at its performance level. The Core 7 160UL, by contrast, has rivals that are similarly close, with deltas ranging from 0.3% to 0.6% around its 14232 average.

Users should select the Core Ultra X7 368H for multi-threaded compute work, given its 66.5% to 84.4% advantage in those workloads. The Core 7 160UL, with its lower power envelope and desktop socket, fits scenarios where the performance requirements are modest and the measured deltas of 46% to 84% are acceptable trade-offs. The data does not show any workload where the Core 7 160UL offers a performance benefit.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28221, while the Core 7 160UL scores 9386. The Core Ultra X7 368H is 66.7% ahead in this benchmark.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The smallest gap appears in PassMark single-thread performance. The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 4005, and the Core 7 160UL scores 3391, a delta of 15.3%.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 7 160UL has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Core Ultra X7 368H has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Despite the lower boost clock, the Core Ultra X7 368H still wins every benchmark.

Q: How do the two processors compare in PassMark integer math?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 88083, and the Core 7 160UL scores 47515. This is a delta of 46.1%, the smallest relative advantage in any multi-threaded workload.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518, and the Core 7 160UL has an average benchmark score of 14232.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H is at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 7 160UL is at the 69th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. The Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 7 160UL has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

The thermal design power differs, with the Core 7 160UL at 15 and the Core Ultra X7 368H at 25. The socket types are different as well: the Core 7 160UL uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540. The market segments differ, with the Core 7 160UL classified as Desktop and the Core Ultra X7 368H as Mobile.

Memory support also differs. The Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the Core 7 160UL has no memory bandwidth figure in the data. PCIe support differs, with the Core 7 160UL using Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only) and the Core Ultra X7 368H using Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 160UL has a release date of 2024-04-07, and the Core Ultra X7 368H has a release date of 2026-01-04. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a part number of SA4R7Q9EJ, while the Core 7 160UL has an unknown part number.

Architecture Differences

The architecture and process node distinguish these two processors significantly. The Core 7 160UL is built on Raptor Lake architecture, with the codename Raptor Lake-PS. It belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses Panther Lake architecture, with the codename Panther Lake, and belongs to the Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) generation.

The process node differs substantially. The Core 7 160UL is manufactured on a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Cache structures differ across all levels. 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 X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Both processors have larger per-core caches and a larger shared L3 in the Core Ultra X7 368H.

The production status for both processors is Active. Neither processor supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra X7 368H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, while the Core 7 160UL has no recorded series information.