Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins every single recorded comparison against the Intel Core 7 240H. Across 17 head-to-head tests, the Ultra X9 378H takes all 17 wins. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra X9 378H scores 4595 against 1719 for the Core 7 240H, a 62.6% advantage. The smallest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra X9 378H scores 92603 versus 80396, a 13.2% lead.

Multi-threaded rendering shows a similar pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X9 378H delivers 32553 points, more than double the 15764 points from the Core 7 240H, a 51.6% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 13672 for the Ultra X9 378H against 8562, a 37.4% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the trend with 3281 versus 2360, a 28.1% difference.

Single-core Cinebench results reinforce the same conclusion. Cinebench R15 single-core gives the Ultra X9 378H 462 points against 249, a 46.1% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1929 versus 1208, again a 37.4% difference. These consistent margins across multiple Cinebench versions indicate that the Ultra X9 378H holds a structural advantage rather than a workload-specific one.

PassMark workloads reveal where the Ultra X9 378H excels most. The find prime numbers test shows the largest proportional gap: 357 versus 102, a 71.4% lead. Data encryption shows 29840 versus 15155, a 49.2% gap. Physics simulation scores 3404 against 1723, a 49.4% difference. Floating point math reaches 114500 versus 58905, a 48.6% margin. Extended instructions score 31315 versus 16897, a 46% gap. Data compression delivers 386591 against 271774, a 29.7% lead. Random string sorting completes at 44648 versus 28866, a 35.3% advantage.

The narrowest margins still favor the Ultra X9 378H. PassMark single-thread shows 4453 versus 3782, a 15.1% lead. PassMark multi-thread shows 38298 versus 23975, a 37.4% difference. Integer math is the closest contest overall at 13.2%, but even that result leaves no ambiguity about the winner.

Average benchmark scores place the two processors in different tiers entirely. The Core 7 240H records an average benchmark score of 31483, placing it in the 82nd percentile across all CPUs. The Ultra X9 378H averages 47468, placing it in the 89th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 240H include the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31508, both within 0.1% of its score. The Ultra X9 378H sits alongside desktop-class parts: the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 at 47527, the Intel Core i7-13700KF at 47330, and the Intel Core i9-12900F at 47176.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 7 240H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, built on Intel's 10 nm process. Its generation is listed as Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh). The Ultra X9 378H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, with the Panther Lake codename and Panther Lake-H generation, fabricated on a 3 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it offers more physical cores without additional threads. The Ultra X9 378H also carries a larger L1 cache at 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core, and a larger L2 cache at 2.5 MB per core versus 2 MB per core. The shared L3 cache runs opposite: the Core 7 240H has 24 MB shared, while the Ultra X9 378H has 18 MB shared.

Clock speeds favor the Core 7 240H on paper. Its base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Ultra X9 378H starts lower at 2.00 GHz base and tops out at 5.00 GHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the Ultra X9 378H delivers substantially higher benchmark scores, indicating that architectural efficiency and core count outweigh the raw clock advantage.

Power characteristics differ sharply. The Core 7 240H has a TDP of 45 W, while the Ultra X9 378H is rated at 25 W. The lower TDP of the Ultra X9 378H, combined with its higher performance, points to a more power-efficient design.

Socket and platform requirements separate the two. The Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Ultra X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540. These are not interchangeable. PCIe configurations also differ: the Core 7 240H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra X9 378H offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

Memory support diverges completely. The Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. The Ultra X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 7 240H does not have a recorded memory bandwidth figure. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra X9 378H uses Arc B390 graphics. No benchmark data for integrated graphics appears in the recorded measurements.

Release timing places the two in different periods. The Core 7 240H has a release date of 2024-12-17, while the Ultra X9 378H is dated 2026-04-03. The Core 7 240H has a recorded launch MSRP of $502; the Ultra X9 378H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are listed as active production parts for the mobile market segment, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 7 240H. The Core 7 240H records zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X9 378H scores 32553 against 15764, a 51.6% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 37.4% gap (13672 versus 8562), and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 28.1% gap (3281 versus 2360).

Q: Does the Core 7 240H have any advantage in clock speed?

A: Yes. The Core 7 240H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Ultra X9 378H has a 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. Despite this, the Ultra X9 378H leads in every recorded benchmark.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Core 7 240H has a TDP of 45 W, while the Ultra X9 378H has a TDP of 25 W. The Ultra X9 378H delivers higher performance at a lower rated power draw.

Q: Are the two processors compatible with the same motherboards?

A: No. The Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, and the Ultra X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540. They are different sockets and are not interchangeable.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to other CPUs?

A: The Core 7 240H averages 31483 and sits in the 82nd percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31508. The Ultra X9 378H averages 47468 and sits in the 89th percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 at 47527 and the Intel Core i9-12900F at 47176.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict: the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is the stronger processor in every measured workload. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, posts a higher average benchmark score (47468 versus 31483), and occupies a higher percentile ranking (89th versus 82nd). The performance advantage is not limited to one category; it spans single-core, multi-core, encryption, compression, physics, floating point, integer math, and sorting workloads.

The Core 7 240H does offer a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, a larger shared L3 cache of 24 MB versus 18 MB, and broader memory support including DDR4 and DDR5. It also has a recorded launch MSRP of $502, while the Ultra X9 378H has no recorded launch MSRP. These factors may matter in specific system designs, but they do not translate into benchmark wins.

The Ultra X9 378H counters with more cores (16 versus 10), larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, a smaller 3 nm process node, a lower 25 W TDP, and a higher average benchmark score. Its nearest rivals are desktop-class processors like the Intel Core i7-13700KF and Intel Core i9-12900F, which places it in a different competitive tier than the Core 7 240H, whose nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX and Intel Core Ultra 5 225H.

For workloads that depend on single-threaded speed, the Ultra X9 378H leads by 15.1% in PassMark single-thread and by 62.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core. For heavily threaded workloads, the Ultra X9 378H leads by 51.6% in Cinebench R23 multi-core and by 37.4% in PassMark multi-thread. The largest performance gap appears in prime number calculation, where the Ultra X9 378H leads by 71.4%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category except for manufacturer, market segment, production status, ECC support, and multiplier lock status.

• Cores: Core 7 240H has 10; Ultra X9 378H has 16.
• Threads: Both have 16.
• Base clock: Core 7 240H at 2.50 GHz; Ultra X9 378H at 2.00 GHz.
• Boost clock: Core 7 240H at 5.20 GHz; Ultra X9 378H at 5.00 GHz.
• TDP: Core 7 240H at 45 W; Ultra X9 378H at 25 W.
• Socket: Core 7 240H on Intel BGA 1744; Ultra X9 378H on Intel BGA 2540.
• Codename: Core 7 240H is Raptor Lake-H; Ultra X9 378H is Panther Lake.
• Process node: Core 7 240H at 10 nm; Ultra X9 378H at 3 nm.
• L1 cache: Core 7 240H at 80 KB per core; Ultra X9 378H at 192 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Core 7 240H at 2 MB per core; Ultra X9 378H at 2.5 MB per core.
• L3 cache: Core 7 240H at 24 MB shared; Ultra X9 378H at 18 MB shared.
• Memory support: Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5; Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X only.
• Memory bandwidth: Core 7 240H has no recorded figure; Ultra X9 378H records 153.6 GB/s.
• PCIe: Core 7 240H has Gen 5 with 8 lanes; Ultra X9 378H has Gen 5 with 4 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics 64EU; Ultra X9 378H uses Arc B390.
• Release date: Core 7 240H on 2024-12-17; Ultra X9 378H on 2026-04-03.
• Launch MSRP: Core 7 240H at $502; Ultra X9 378H has no recorded launch MSRP.
• Part number: Core 7 240H is SRQ6TQ5ML; Ultra X9 378H is unknown.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins in every recorded benchmark category. The largest advantages appear in prime number finding (71.4% lead), single-core Cinebench R23 (62.6% lead), data encryption (49.2% lead), physics (49.4% lead), and floating point math (48.6% lead). These results indicate strengths in calculation-heavy, encryption-heavy, and simulation-style workloads. The smallest lead is in integer math at 13.2%, but it is still a win.

The Intel Core 7 240H has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its strengths are limited to specification-level differences: a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz, a larger shared L3 cache of 24 MB, DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, and a recorded launch MSRP of $502. These features could matter in system designs that require specific memory types or that rely on the higher boost clock, but the recorded benchmark data does not show any workload where the Core 7 240H outperforms the Ultra X9 378H.

Use-case selection depends on whether raw measured performance or platform compatibility takes priority. The Ultra X9 378H is the choice for workloads such as rendering, encryption, compression, physics simulation, and floating point math, based on its leads in those specific tests. The Core 7 240H may be the only option in systems built around the Intel BGA 1744 socket or requiring DDR4 memory support, since the Ultra X9 378H uses a different socket and supports only LPDDR5X.

The average benchmark score difference of 47468 versus 31483, combined with the 89th versus 82nd percentile placement, confirms that the Ultra X9 378H belongs to a higher performance class. Its nearest rivals include desktop processors such as the Intel Core i7-13700KF and Intel Core i9-12900F, while the Core 7 240H competes with mobile and mid-range parts like the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX and Intel Core Ultra 5 225H. For any workload represented in the recorded benchmarks, the Ultra X9 378H delivers the higher score.