Intel Core 7 160UL vs Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Core 7 160UL and the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the wins counters for both processors are zero. This means a direct per-test comparison cannot be constructed from the recorded data.

However, the Intel Core 7 160UL has a full set of benchmark scores across Cinebench and Passmark tests, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 has no benchmark entries at all in the database. The Intel part's results include a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9386 and a single-core score of 1325, along with a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 3942 and single-core score of 556. The Cinebench R15 results show a multi-core score of 946 and a single-core score of 133.

Passmark results for the Intel Core 7 160UL include a multi-thread score of 11043, a single-thread score of 3391, integer math at 47515, floating point math at 25670, data compression at 108953, data encryption at 7146, extended instructions at 5832, find prime numbers at 50, physics at 819, and random string sorting at 11843.

The Intel Core 7 160UL holds a percentile rank of 69 among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 14232. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C with an average score of 14277 (a delta of -0.3%), the Intel Core i5-10400F at 14185 (delta +0.3%), the Intel Xeon 6756E at 14163 (delta +0.5%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U at 14320 (delta -0.6%). This places the Intel part within a tight cluster, essentially trading positions with these competitors depending on the specific workload.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100, by contrast, shows an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50, with no nearest rivals listed. The absence of benchmark data means no comparative performance statements can be made for this processor from the database. The percentile rank of 50 indicates the database places it in the median position among all recorded CPUs, but without test scores, this rank cannot be substantiated through specific workload results.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Intel Core 7 160UL is the only processor of the two with measurable benchmark performance. It delivers a multi-thread score of 11043 in Passmark and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9386, supported by a single-thread Passmark score of 3391. The average benchmark score of 14232 and the 69th percentile ranking confirm that this processor performs in the upper-middle range of the database.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 has no benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals recorded. Its percentile rank of 50 is the only performance-related data point, and it stands without supporting evidence from actual tests. The database shows this processor as having zero measured performance, so any selection between these two parts must be based on the Intel processor's documented results.

For users requiring verified performance data, the Intel Core 7 160UL is the only option with recorded scores. The Qualcomm part cannot be evaluated for performance from the database, and its 50th percentile ranking does not correspond to any measurable benchmark outcome. The data indicates the Intel processor should be chosen when performance verification is required, while the Qualcomm processor's selection cannot be justified from benchmark evidence alone.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core 7 160UL?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has an average benchmark score of 14232, placing it in the 69th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The benchmark array for the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 is empty, and its average benchmark score is 0.

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 160UL compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel part's average score of 14232 is 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-10400F (14185), 0.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163), and 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U (14320).

Q: What is the single-thread performance of the Intel Core 7 160UL?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 3391 in Passmark single-thread tests, 1325 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 556 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 133 in Cinebench R15 single-core.

Q: What is the multi-thread performance of the Intel Core 7 160UL?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 11043 in Passmark multi-thread tests, 9386 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 3942 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 946 in Cinebench R15 multi-core.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100?

A: The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 has a percentile rank of 50 among all CPUs, though it has no benchmark scores recorded to support this position.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core 7 160UL and Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 differ across several core specifications. The Intel processor uses 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Qualcomm part uses 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel base clock is 1.80 GHz with a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, whereas the Qualcomm base clock is 3.00 GHz with no boost clock listed. Thermal design power differs as well: the Intel part is rated at 15 watts, the Qualcomm part at 25 watts.

The sockets are incompatible: the Intel processor uses Intel Socket 1700, the Qualcomm processor uses Qualcomm BGA 2073. The Intel part's architecture is Raptor Lake with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, while the Qualcomm part lists no architecture and uses the codename Oryon. The process nodes differ substantially: Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry, while Qualcomm uses a 4 nm process from TSMC.

Cache configurations diverge as well. The Intel processor has 80 KB L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB L2 cache per core, and 12 MB shared L3 cache. The Qualcomm processor has 288 KB L1 cache per core, 12 MB L2 cache per module, and 6 MB shared L3 cache. Memory support differs: Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, while Qualcomm supports only LPDDR5X in dual-channel mode. The Qualcomm part lists a memory bandwidth of 135.2 GB/s, while the Intel part does not list a bandwidth figure.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Intel part provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), the Qualcomm part provides Gen 4 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are different as well: Intel uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, Qualcomm uses Adreno X1-45. The market segments differ, with Intel listed as Desktop and Qualcomm as Mobile. Release dates are close: Intel on 2024-04-07 and Qualcomm on 2024-08-27. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 160UL wins in every measurable performance category because it is the only processor with recorded benchmark data. Its Passmark multi-thread score of 11043 indicates strong parallel workload capability, while the single-thread score of 3391 shows solid per-core performance for lightly threaded tasks. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9386 and single-core score of 1325 provide additional confirmation across rendering workloads.

The Intel part's data compression score of 108953 and integer math score of 47515 suggest particular strength in data processing and computational tasks. Floating point math at 25670 and encryption at 7146 show moderate capability in those areas. The physics score of 819 and find prime numbers score of 50 are lower relative to the other Passmark tests, indicating that these specific workloads are not the processor's primary strengths.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 wins in no measured category, as there are no benchmark results in the database. Its only advantage appears in the specifications: a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz compared to 1.80 GHz, a higher TDP of 25 watts compared to 15 watts, a smaller process node of 4 nm compared to 10 nm, and a higher memory bandwidth of 135.2 GB/s. These specification advantages do not translate into recorded performance wins because no test data exists.

For use cases that require rendering performance, integer-heavy computations, or data compression, the Intel Core 7 160UL has documented results showing capability. For use cases that depend on lower power consumption, the Intel part's 15 watt TDP is lower than the Qualcomm part's 25 watts. The Qualcomm processor's higher base clock and smaller process node suggest potential efficiency advantages, but these remain unverified in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 7 160UL is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and belongs to the Core 7 generation. It uses a 10 nm process manufactured by Intel. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 uses the Oryon codename and belongs to the Snapdragon X (Plus) generation, with no architecture name listed. Its 4 nm process is manufactured by TSMC.

The Intel processor's core configuration uses 10 cores with 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement where some cores support hyper-threading. The Qualcomm processor uses 8 cores with 8 threads, showing no hyper-threading. The Intel L1 cache is 80 KB per core, while the Qualcomm L1 cache is 288 KB per core, a substantial difference in per-core cache allocation. The L2 cache configuration differs as well: Intel uses 1.25 MB per core, Qualcomm uses 12 MB per module. The L3 cache is larger on the Intel part at 12 MB shared, compared to 6 MB shared on the Qualcomm part.

The Intel processor's integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the Qualcomm processor uses Adreno X1-45. Memory architecture differs: Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5 across a dual-channel bus, Qualcomm supports only LPDDR5X across a dual-channel bus with a listed bandwidth of 135.2 GB/s. The Intel processor provides 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Qualcomm processor provides 12 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU.

The Intel processor is classified as a Desktop part with a release date of 2024-04-07. The Qualcomm processor is classified as a Mobile part with a release date of 2024-08-27. The Intel part's base clock of 1.80 GHz is significantly lower than the Qualcomm's 3.00 GHz, though the Intel part has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz while the Qualcomm part lists none. The Intel part's 15 watt TDP is lower than the Qualcomm's 25 watt TDP, and the Intel processor is built for Intel Socket 1700 while the Qualcomm processor uses Qualcomm BGA 2073. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as active in production.