Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H

The recorded benchmark data presents a clear and consistent hierarchy between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins every single benchmark in the comparison database, taking all 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 7 240H, while a competent performer in its own right, never manages to surpass its newer counterpart in any measured workload. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra X9 388H is 44466, while the Core 7 240H trails at 31483. This places the Core Ultra X9 388H in the 88th percentile of all CPUs tested, whereas the Core 7 240H sits at the 82nd percentile. The data suggests a generational leap rather than a simple clock-for-clock improvement.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic separation occurs in the PassMark prime number test. The Core Ultra X9 388H scores 358, which is 71.5% ahead of the Core 7 240H's 102. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire dataset. Such a result points to substantial improvements in integer arithmetic and branch handling, as finding prime numbers is a heavily compute-bound operation that stresses the processor's ability to execute tight loops.

The encryption workload also shows a major divide. The Core Ultra X9 388H delivers a score of 28490 in PassMark data encryption, compared to 15155 for the Core 7 240H, a difference of 46.8%. Encryption routines often rely on specialized instruction sets and high memory bandwidth, so this margin hints at broader architectural enhancements beyond raw core count.

Floating-point math follows a similar pattern. The Core Ultra X9 388H posts 112550 in PassMark floating point math, while the Core 7 240H manages 58905, a 47.7% advantage for the newer chip. Extended instructions also favor the Core Ultra X9 388H, with a score of 29943 versus 16897, a 43.6% gap. Physics calculations, which frequently depend on floating-point throughput, show the Core Ultra X9 388H at 3226 against the Core 7 240H's 1723, a 46.6% lead.

Cinebench results reinforce the trend. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra X9 388H scores 18911, which is 16.6% higher than the Core 7 240H's 15764. The single-core R23 result shows the Core Ultra X9 388H at 2200.5 versus 1719, a 21.9% margin. Cinebench R20 tells a starker story: the Core Ultra X9 388H reaches 13101 in multi-core and 1849 in single-core, while the Core 7 240H scores 8562 and 1208 respectively, representing 34.6% and 34.7% deficits for the older part. Cinebench R15 mirrors this with the Core Ultra X9 388H at 2955 multi-core and 309.5 single-core, against 2360 and 249 for the Core 7 240H, gaps of 20.1% and 19.5%.

PassMark integer math is the closest contest in the entire set. The Core Ultra X9 388H scores 90882, only 11.5% ahead of the Core 7 240H's 80396. Single-thread performance is similarly tight: 4280 for the Core Ultra X9 388H versus 3782 for the Core 7 240H, an 11.6% edge. These narrower margins suggest that the per-core architectural improvements, while real, are not the primary source of the larger multi-threaded gaps.

The multithread PassMark score shows the Core Ultra X9 388H at 36811 versus 23975, a 34.9% advantage. Random string sorting, a memory-intensive task, gives the Core Ultra X9 388H a 44010 score against 28866, a 34.4% lead. Data compression shows 361763 for the Core Ultra X9 388H and 271774 for the Core 7 240H, a 24.9% difference. Every measured workload, from compression to encryption to physics, lands in favor of the Core Ultra X9 388H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466, while the Intel Core 7 240H averages 31483. The Core Ultra X9 388H also ranks in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 82nd percentile for the Core 7 240H.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra X9 388H scores 2200.5 versus 1719 for the Core 7 240H, a 21.9% difference. PassMark single-thread shows a smaller gap, with the Core Ultra X9 388H at 4280 and the Core 7 240H at 3782, an 11.6% edge.

Q: Does the Core 7 240H win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head dataset records 17 tests, and the Core Ultra X9 388H wins all 17. The Core 7 240H records zero wins across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and all PassMark workloads.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two processors?

A: PassMark integer math shows the narrowest margin, with the Core Ultra X9 388H at 90882 and the Core 7 240H at 80396, an 11.5% difference. PassMark single-thread is nearly as close at 11.6%.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is built on a 3 nm process, while the Intel Core 7 240H uses a 10 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the smaller node allows for higher transistor density and efficiency.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. Despite having the same thread count, the Core Ultra X9 388H delivers higher multi-threaded scores in every Cinebench test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 7 240H is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core 7 generation described as Raptor Lake Refresh. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses Panther Lake architecture and is part of the Core Ultra Series 3, classified as the Ultra X9 generation with a Panther Lake-H designation. This is not a minor revision; it is a full generational shift.

Manufacturing processes differ substantially. The Core 7 240H is fabricated on Intel's 10 nm node, while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses a 3 nm node. Both chips are produced by Intel's own foundry, but the smaller process node gives the newer processor a significant density and efficiency advantage, which helps explain its lower TDP despite having more cores.

Core configurations also diverge. The Core 7 240H offers 10 cores and 16 threads, meaning it relies on Hyper-Threading to reach that thread count. The Core Ultra X9 388H provides 16 cores and 16 threads, indicating a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio. The newer processor does not need simultaneous multithreading to exceed the Core 7 240H's thread count, and its raw core advantage is part of why multi-threaded benchmarks skew heavily in its favor.

Cache hierarchies are notably different. The Core 7 240H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The newer chip has larger per-core caches but a smaller shared L3 pool. The larger L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to its strong single-thread and latency-sensitive performance, while the smaller L3 may reflect the different core topology.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The Core Ultra X9 388H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 7 240H has no listed memory bandwidth figure in the database, so direct bandwidth comparison is not possible, but the newer part's use of LPDDR5X indicates a platform designed around faster, more power-efficient memory.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 7 240H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra X9 388H offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes. This could affect expansion options in laptops, particularly for discrete GPUs or high-speed storage, though the practical impact depends on the specific system design.

Integrated graphics are another point of divergence. The Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra X9 388H carries an Arc B390 GPU. The database does not include GPU benchmark scores, so performance cannot be quantified here, but the architectural identity of the two iGPUs is completely different.

The Core 7 240H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 388H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Despite lower clock speeds, the Core Ultra X9 388H wins every benchmark, which indicates that IPC improvements and core count outweigh the raw clock disadvantage.

The Core 7 240H has a TDP of 45 W, while the Core Ultra X9 388H is rated at 25 W. The newer processor delivers higher performance across all recorded tests while drawing a lower thermal envelope, a clear sign of the efficiency gains from the 3 nm process and Panther Lake architecture.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H outperforms the Intel Core 7 240H in every single recorded test, from Cinebench R15 to PassMark multithread. The smallest lead is 11.5% in integer math, and the largest is 71.5% in prime number calculation. No workload in the database favors the Core 7 240H.

The Core 7 240H is not a weak processor by absolute standards. It ranks in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs and posts respectable scores in both single and multi-threaded tests. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX with an average score of 31495 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31508, both within 0.1% of its 31483 average. Against those peers, it is competitive. Against the Core Ultra X9 388H, it is simply outclassed.

The Core Ultra X9 388H sits in a different performance tier. Its average score of 44466 places it near the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, which averages 44573, a 0.2% difference. It also edges out the Intel Core i9-13950HX, which averages 44342, a 0.3% gap in favor of the Core Ultra X9 388H. Those are heavyweight desktop and enthusiast mobile parts, and the Core Ultra X9 388H matches or exceeds them in the database's aggregate metric.

For anyone selecting between these two processors based purely on measured performance, the choice is clear. The Core Ultra X9 388H delivers higher scores in every category, uses a more advanced manufacturing node, draws less power, and provides more cores. The Core 7 240H retains advantages in CPU PCIe lanes, a higher boost clock, and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory, but those features do not translate into any benchmark win in the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core 7 240H and Intel Core Ultra X9 388H differ across nearly every core specification. The Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the Core 7 240H and 2.10 GHz for the Core Ultra X9 388H. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. The Core 7 240H carries a 45 W TDP, while the Core Ultra X9 388H is rated at 25 W.

Sockets and platforms are incompatible. The Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, and the Core Ultra X9 388H uses Intel BGA 2540. The architecture differs completely: Raptor Lake for the Core 7 240H versus Panther Lake for the Core Ultra X9 388H. Process nodes are 10 nm and 3 nm respectively, both fabricated by Intel.

Cache configurations differ in both size and allocation. The Core 7 240H has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra X9 388H has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus. The Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe configurations differ: the Core 7 240H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are the Iris Xe Graphics 64EU on the Core 7 240H and the Arc B390 on the Core Ultra X9 388H. The Core 7 240H has a launch MSRP of $502, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are mobile parts, currently Active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins everywhere in the recorded data. It leads in all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core. It leads in all PassMark workloads, including data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The margin ranges from 11.5% to 71.5%, with the largest advantages appearing in prime number calculation, floating-point math, encryption, physics, and extended instructions.

The Core 7 240H has no recorded benchmark win. Its closest relative performance is in integer math and single-thread tests, where the Core Ultra X9 388H leads by only 11.5% and 11.6% respectively. These are the workloads where the older chip is least disadvantaged, likely because its higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz partially compensates for the newer architecture's IPC gains.

The Core 7 240H does hold some specification-level advantages that do not appear in the benchmark results. It offers 8 CPU PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 4, which could matter for systems with high-bandwidth peripherals. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, providing broader memory compatibility. It also has a higher boost clock and a larger shared L3 cache of 24 MB versus 18 MB. These features may appeal in specific system designs, but they do not translate into any measured performance win.

The Core Ultra X9 388H's advantages are comprehensive: more cores, a smaller process node, larger per-core caches, higher memory bandwidth, a more advanced integrated GPU, and a lower TDP. Every recorded benchmark confirms its dominance. For workloads that stress floating-point math, encryption, physics, or prime number calculation, the Core Ultra X9 388H is dramatically faster. For integer math and single-thread tasks, it is still faster, but the gap narrows to roughly 11%. The data supports only one conclusion: the Core Ultra X9 388H is the superior processor in this comparison.