Intel Core 7 160UL vs Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Core 7 160UL versus the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100. The head-to-head comparison field is empty, and the win counters show zero for both processors. This means the two CPUs have not been measured against each other in the same test session, so a direct per-test comparison cannot be drawn from the recorded data.

What can be compared is the Intel Core 7 160UL's measured performance against the database average and its nearest rivals, alongside the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100's percentile standing. The Intel part holds a 69th percentile ranking across all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 14,232. The Snapdragon X1E-78-100 sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, indicating that no benchmark submissions exist for the Qualcomm processor in the current database.

The Intel Core 7 160UL's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, which averages 14,277 (a 0.3% higher score), the Intel Core i5-10400F averaging 14,185 (0.3% lower), the Intel Xeon 6756E averaging 14,163 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U averaging 14,320 (0.6% higher). The Core 7 160UL effectively lands in a tight cluster with these four processors, all within a 1.1% span of each other. This indicates the Intel chip delivers a balanced overall performance profile near the middle of its immediate competitive field.

Since the Snapdragon X1E-78-100 has no recorded benchmark scores, its performance cannot be quantified relative to the Intel part or any other processor in the database. The 50th percentile ranking places it at the median of all CPUs, but without score data, that percentile is not backed by measured workload results.

FAQ

Q: Does the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 have any recorded benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The benchmarks array for the Snapdragon X1E-78-100 is empty, and its average benchmark score is recorded as zero.

Q: What is the Intel Core 7 160UL's best single-core benchmark result?

A: The highest single-thread score for the Intel Core 7 160UL is 3,391 in the Passmark single-thread test, which also appears as the Passmark single-thread result. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 1,325, and its Cinebench R20 single-core score is 556.

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 160UL compare to the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 7320C has an average benchmark score of 14,277, which is 0.3% higher than the Intel Core 7 160UL's average of 14,232. The two processors are effectively tied in overall average performance.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 has 12 cores, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores. Both processors support 12 threads.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference between the two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 has a TDP of 35 watts. The Intel part is rated for a lower thermal envelope.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 160UL support ECC memory?

A: No. The database records ECC memory support as false for the Intel Core 7 160UL. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 also has ECC memory support recorded as false.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear distinction for the Intel Core 7 160UL: it has measurable benchmark results across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and multiple Passmark workloads, giving it a 69th percentile standing among all CPUs in the database. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 has no recorded benchmark scores, so its 50th percentile ranking lacks the supporting measurements that would allow for a performance comparison.

For users who rely on recorded multi-threaded and single-threaded performance data, the Intel Core 7 160UL is the only one of the two with verified scores. Its average benchmark score of 14,232 places it in a tight group with the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, Intel Core i5-10400F, Intel Xeon 6756E, and AMD Ryzen 5 3501U, all within 0.6% of each other. The Snapdragon X1E-78-100 cannot be positioned relative to any of these processors because the database contains no workload results for it.

The Intel processor also carries a lower TDP of 15 watts versus 35 watts for the Qualcomm part, which indicates a smaller thermal footprint in the recorded specifications. The Snapdragon X1E-78-100, by contrast, offers more cores (12 versus 10) and a higher base clock (3.40 GHz versus 1.80 GHz), but those specifications cannot be validated against measured performance in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several recorded specification fields. The Intel Core 7 160UL uses 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 uses 12 cores and 12 threads. Base clock speeds are 1.80 GHz for the Intel part and 3.40 GHz for the Qualcomm part; the Qualcomm processor has no recorded boost clock, whereas the Intel processor boosts to 5.20 GHz.

Thermal design power is 15 watts for the Intel Core 7 160UL and 35 watts for the Snapdragon X1E-78-100. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Qualcomm part uses Qualcomm BGA 2073. Memory support differs: the Intel processor supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Qualcomm processor supports LPDDR5X. The Qualcomm processor has a recorded memory bandwidth of 135.2 GB/s, while the Intel processor has no memory bandwidth figure in the database.

PCIe lanes also differ: the Intel Core 7 160UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Snapdragon X1E-78-100 provides Gen 4 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are the Iris Xe Graphics 96EU for the Intel part and the Adreno X1-85 for the Qualcomm part. The market segment is Desktop for the Intel processor and Mobile for the Qualcomm processor.

Architecture Differences

The architectural records show substantial divergence between the two processors. The Intel Core 7 160UL is built on Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, part of the Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation. It uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 uses the Oryon codename, belongs to the Snapdragon X (Elite) generation, and is built on a 4 nm process node by TSMC.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Intel Core 7 160UL has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, an L2 cache of 1.25 MB per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 has an L1 cache of 288 KB per core, an L2 cache of 12 MB per module, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Intel processor integrates Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Qualcomm processor integrates Adreno X1-85 graphics. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers. The Intel part was released on 2024-04-07, and the Qualcomm part on 2024-04-23, a difference of approximately two weeks in the recorded release dates. The Intel processor's part number is unknown, while the Qualcomm part number is X1E78100.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 160UL wins in every category where the database contains measured performance data, simply because the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 has no benchmark results recorded. The Intel processor shows strong multi-threaded scores: 9,386 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 3,942 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 946 in Cinebench R15 multicore. Its single-thread results are 1,325 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 556 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 133 in Cinebench R15 single-core.

Passmark workloads for the Intel Core 7 160UL show 108,953 in data compression, 7,146 in data encryption, 5,832 in extended instructions, 50 in find prime numbers, 25,670 in floating point math, 47,515 in integer math, 11,043 in multithread, 819 in physics, 11,843 in random string sorting, and 3,391 in single-thread. These scores position the Intel processor at the 69th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-78-100 has no recorded wins in any benchmark category because no scores exist. The processor's 50th percentile ranking and zero average benchmark score mean the database cannot attribute any workload advantage to it. The Qualcomm part does hold specification advantages in core count (12 versus 10), base clock (3.40 GHz versus 1.80 GHz), memory bandwidth (135.2 GB/s versus no recorded figure), and PCIe lanes (12 versus 8), but these are unverified against performance tests.

For use cases requiring verified multi-threaded compute, the Intel Core 7 160UL delivers recorded results across all Cinebench and Passmark tests. For use cases relying on the Qualcomm processor's higher core count, higher base clock, and larger per-core L1 cache, the database provides no measured evidence of performance, so any advantage remains speculative. The Intel part also operates at a lower 15-watt TDP, which may be relevant for systems where thermal limits are a constraint, based on the recorded specification data.