Intel Core 7 240H vs Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 Comparison

The Intel Core 7 240H and Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 target the same mobile computing space but approach it from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel part is a high-power x86 processor built on a mature process, while the Qualcomm chip is an Arm-based contender with a lower thermal envelope. The recorded data in the database shows that the Intel Core 7 240H has a substantial advantage in raw measured performance, while the Snapdragon offers a more efficient physical design and a different feature set. This analysis compares the two based on the available specifications and benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: How do the core counts differ between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Intel processor uses hyper-threading to reach 16 threads from 10 physical cores, whereas the Snapdragon does not support simultaneous multithreading, so its thread count equals its core count.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H reaches a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, which is significantly higher than the Snapdragon X1E-80-100’s maximum of 4.00 GHz. The Intel part also has a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz compared to the Snapdragon’s 3.40 GHz base.

Q: What is the difference in thermal design power?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has a thermal design power (TDP) of 45 watts, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 is rated at 35 watts. This indicates the Intel processor is designed for a higher power envelope, which typically requires more substantial cooling.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 supports only LPDDR5X memory, also in a dual-channel setup, and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 135.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has the higher process node?

A: The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC, which is smaller than the Intel Core 7 240H’s 10 nm node produced by Intel. A smaller process node generally allows for more transistors in a given area and improved power efficiency.

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 240H compare to its closest rivals in the database?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has an average benchmark score of 31483, placing it at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 with an average score of 31473 and a delta of 0 percent, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX with 31495 and a delta of 0 percent, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H with 31508 and a delta of -0.1 percent, and the Intel Core i5-13500 with 31510 and a delta of -0.1 percent.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use entirely different instruction set architectures and manufacturing approaches. The Intel Core 7 240H is based on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Core 7 generation labeled Raptor Lake Refresh. It is manufactured by Intel on a 10 nm process. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 uses the Oryon codename, belongs to the Snapdragon X series under the Elite generation, and is produced by TSMC on a 4 nm process. This process difference is notable; the Snapdragon’s 4 nm node is smaller than Intel’s 10 nm node, which suggests the Qualcomm part can achieve its performance with lower power consumption per unit of work.

The cache hierarchies are also structured differently. The Intel Core 7 240H provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 offers 288 KB of L1 cache per core, 12 MB of L2 cache per module, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has a much larger L3 cache pool, which can benefit workloads that repeatedly access a large working set. The Snapdragon’s larger per-core L1 cache and per-module L2 allocation reflect a different design target, likely aimed at reducing memory latency for its Arm-based cores.

The integrated graphics units also differ. The Intel Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 uses an Adreno X1-85 GPU. The database does not provide benchmark scores for either integrated GPU, so a direct performance comparison of graphics capabilities cannot be made from the recorded data. However, the presence of different GPU architectures indicates that driver support and software optimization will vary between the two platforms.

Memory support is another major architectural split. The Intel processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving system designers flexibility in choosing memory modules. The Qualcomm processor supports only LPDDR5X memory, which is typically soldered onto the motherboard and offers higher bandwidth in a low-power form factor. The Snapdragon’s memory bandwidth is recorded at 135.2 GB/s, while the Intel part does not have a corresponding bandwidth figure in the database. The memory bus is dual-channel for both processors.

The PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Intel Core 7 240H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes for CPU-attached devices, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 12 lanes. The Intel part’s Gen 5 support allows for higher theoretical bandwidth per lane, but the Snapdragon offers more total lanes. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not possible on either platform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a full set of benchmark results for the Intel Core 7 240H, but the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 has no recorded benchmark scores. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the wins count for both processors is zero. This means a direct numerical comparison of the two processors’ performance is not possible from the recorded data. The analysis must therefore rely on the Intel processor’s absolute scores and its standing relative to other CPUs in the database.

The Intel Core 7 240H delivers strong multi-threaded performance, as shown by its Cinebench results. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2360 points, and in Cinebench R20 multicore, it reaches 8562 points. The Cinebench R23 multicore score is 15764 points. These results indicate that the processor can handle heavy workloads that utilize all 16 threads. Single-thread performance is also solid, with Cinebench R15 single-core scoring 249, Cinebench R20 single-core scoring 1208, and Cinebench R23 single-core scoring 1719.

In the PassMark suite, the Intel Core 7 240H shows varied results across different workload types. It scores 271774 in data compression, which is its highest PassMark subtest score, and 15155 in data encryption. Extended instructions score 16897, and floating point math reaches 58905. Integer math scores 80396, and multithread performance is recorded at 23975. The physics test scores 1723, and random string sorting scores 28866. Single-thread performance is measured at 3782 in both the single-thread and singlethread PassMark subtests, which are identical scores in the database. The find prime numbers test returns a score of 102.

The average benchmark score for the Intel Core 7 240H is 31483, and it sits at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. This percentile ranking places it above the median, indicating that it outperforms the majority of processors tracked by the database. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered around its average score. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 matches it with an average score of 31473 and a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX is marginally ahead at 31495, also with a delta of 0 percent. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H and Intel Core i5-13500 both score 31508 and 31510 respectively, each with a delta of -0.1 percent relative to the Core 7 240H. These small deltas show that the Core 7 240H performs nearly identically to its immediate rivals, with differences of less than one-tenth of a percent.

The absence of benchmark data for the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 leaves a gap in the comparison. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile ranking is 50, which is the median position, but this value is derived from the incomplete score data. Without any subtest results, the database cannot confirm how the Snapdragon performs in multi-threaded, single-threaded, or specialized workloads relative to the Intel part.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications. The Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Intel base clock is 2.50 GHz, and its boost clock is 5.20 GHz. The Snapdragon’s base clock is 3.40 GHz, and its boost clock is 4.00 GHz. The Intel processor has a higher boost clock by 1.20 GHz, while the Snapdragon has a higher base clock by 0.90 GHz.

The thermal design power is 45 watts for the Intel part and 35 watts for the Qualcomm part. The Intel processor uses an Intel BGA 1744 socket, while the Qualcomm processor uses a Qualcomm BGA 2073 socket. These sockets are not interchangeable, so system designs must be specific to one processor or the other. The process node is 10 nm for Intel and 4 nm for TSMC, as noted earlier.

Cache configurations differ across all three levels. The Intel processor has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Qualcomm processor has 288 KB of L1 per core, 12 MB of L2 per module, and 6 MB of shared L3. The memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for Intel, versus LPDDR5X for Qualcomm. The memory bandwidth is not recorded for the Intel part, while the Qualcomm part has a rated bandwidth of 135.2 GB/s. Both processors have dual-channel memory buses and neither supports ECC memory.

The PCIe interface differs: Intel provides PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes, while Qualcomm provides PCIe Gen 4 with 12 lanes. The integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 64EU for Intel and Adreno X1-85 for Qualcomm. Both processors are active in production status and do not have an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $502, while the Qualcomm part has no recorded launch MSRP. The release dates also differ, with the Intel processor released on 2024-12-17 and the Qualcomm processor released on 2024-04-23.

The Verdict

The data in the database paints a clear picture for the Intel Core 7 240H. It is a high-performance mobile processor with a robust set of benchmark results. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15764 and PassMark multithread score of 23975 demonstrate strong capability in multi-threaded applications. Its single-thread performance, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1719 and a PassMark single-thread score of 3782, shows that it also handles lightly threaded tasks well. The 82nd percentile ranking confirms that it outperforms most CPUs in the database, and its average score of 31483 places it in the same class as established rivals like the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100 cannot be assessed on performance from the recorded data because it has no benchmark scores. The only numerical facts available are its core count of 12, thread count of 12, base clock of 3.40 GHz, boost clock of 4.00 GHz, TDP of 35 watts, 4 nm process node, memory bandwidth of 135.2 GB/s, and its 50th percentile ranking. The percentile ranking is based on an average score of 0, which indicates a lack of measured data rather than a true performance level. Therefore, any claim about the Snapdragon’s speed relative to the Intel part would be unsupported by the database.

For users who prioritize raw processing power, the Intel Core 7 240H is the only option with verifiable performance in this comparison. Its higher boost clock, larger L3 cache, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory give it a flexible and powerful profile. The 45 watt TDP suggests it is suited for laptops with adequate cooling and a focus on performance. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1E-80-100, with its lower 35 watt TDP and 4 nm process, may appeal to designs where power efficiency is the primary concern, but the database provides no performance measurements to confirm its capabilities. The choice between the two ultimately depends on whether the user values the Intel part’s proven benchmark results or the Snapdragon’s lower thermal design and modern process node.