Intel Core 7 240H vs Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 7 240H and the Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 is one-sided in the recorded data, but not because the Qualcomm part underperforms. The Intel processor has a full suite of 17 benchmark results across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark workloads. The Snapdragon X2E-88-100 has no benchmark entries in the database, meaning its average benchmark score is recorded as 0 and its percentile ranking sits at 50. The Intel Core 7 240H carries an average benchmark score of 31,483 and ranks in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs.

For the Intel part, the strongest multi-threaded result is the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15,764 points. The single-core result for the same test is 1,719 points. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 8,562 and the single-core score is 1,208. The older Cinebench R15 test shows a multi-core score of 2,360 and a single-core score of 249. These results indicate a processor that scales well when all cores are engaged, with the multi-core to single-core ratio in R23 reaching roughly 9.2 times, which is typical for a hybrid-core mobile design.

The PassMark suite confirms the same pattern. The Intel part scores 80,396 in integer math, 58,905 in floating point math, and 23,975 in multi-thread performance. Single-thread performance is recorded at 3,782 points in both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread entries, which are duplicate measurements of the same metric. Encryption work yields 15,155 points, extended instructions produce 16,897 points, and random string sorting completes at 28,866 points. Data compression scores 271,774, while physics simulation reaches 1,723 and prime number finding manages 102.

Because the Snapdragon X2E-88-100 has no recorded benchmark scores, there are no direct head-to-head wins to report for either side. The database shows zero wins for each processor in the head-to-head comparison field. The Intel part's nearest rivals, based on average benchmark score, are the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 at 31,473 (a 0 percent delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31,495 (0 percent), the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31,508 (-0.1 percent), and the Intel Core i5-13500 at 31,510 (-0.1 percent). This places the Core 7 240H in a tight cluster where a few points separate these four processors, and the Core 7 240H sits between the Ryzen 9 5980HX and the Core Ultra 5 225H in overall average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core 7 240H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Core 7 generation labeled as Raptor Lake Refresh. It is manufactured on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 uses the Glymur codename, belongs to the Snapdragon X2 generation under the Elite family, and is built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The die size for the Qualcomm part is 220 mm², while the Intel die size is not recorded.

Core counts differ substantially. The Intel part provides 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid layout with performance and efficiency cores. The Qualcomm part provides 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning every core is a single thread with no simultaneous multi-threading. The Intel base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Qualcomm base clock is 4.00 GHz with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Intel part reaches a higher maximum frequency, while the Qualcomm part starts from a higher base frequency.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Intel processor has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Qualcomm processor has 288 KB of L1 cache per core and 16 MB of L2 cache per module, with no L3 cache recorded. The per-core L1 allocation on the Qualcomm side is 3.6 times larger than the Intel per-core allocation. The L2 structure differs as well, with Intel allocating a dedicated 2 MB per core and Qualcomm pooling 16 MB per module.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Intel part accepts DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The Qualcomm part accepts LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 152.4 GB/s, a figure that is not present for the Intel processor. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCI Express connectivity differs. The Intel part provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU only. The Qualcomm part provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU only, giving it four additional CPU-attached lanes.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Intel processor uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The Qualcomm processor uses the Adreno X2-90. Both target the mobile market segment and are currently marked as active in production. The Intel part is socketed on Intel BGA 1744, while the Qualcomm part uses Qualcomm BGA 2343. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part number is SRQ6TQ5ML, and the Qualcomm part number is X2E88100.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 boosts to 4.70 GHz. The Intel part holds a 0.50 GHz advantage at maximum frequency.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor provide?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning the Qualcomm part provides more physical cores but does not use simultaneous multi-threading.

Q: What is the process node and foundry for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 220 mm².

Q: Which processor supports more PCI Express lanes?

A: The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU-only lanes. The Intel Core 7 240H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU-only lanes. The Qualcomm part has 4 additional lanes.

Q: Does the database contain any benchmark scores for the Qualcomm processor?

A: No. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile ranking of 50. The Intel Core 7 240H has 17 recorded benchmark results and sits in the 82nd percentile.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 supports LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, and the Qualcomm part records a memory bandwidth of 152.4 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the recorded data.

| Field | Intel Core 7 240H | Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Manufacturer | Intel | Unknown |

| Cores | 10 | 18 |

| Threads | 16 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 | Not recorded |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Qualcomm BGA 2343 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Not recorded |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Glymur |

| Generation | Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) | Snapdragon X2 (Elite) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 220 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 288 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 16 MB (per module) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | Not recorded |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 152.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 64EU | Adreno X2-90 |

| Release Date | 2024-12-17T17:00:00.000Z | 2026-04-05T17:00:00.000Z |

| Launch MSRP | $502 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SRQ6TQ5ML | X2E88100 |

| Benchmarks | 17 recorded results | None recorded |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 82 | 50 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 31,483 | 0 |

| Nearest Rivals | 4 entries recorded | None recorded |

Both processors share the following characteristics: dual-channel memory bus, no ECC memory support, mobile market segment, active production status, locked multiplier, and no 3D V-Cache.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear situation for anyone choosing between these two processors. The Intel Core 7 240H is a fully measured part with 17 benchmark results, an average score of 31,483, and an 82nd percentile ranking. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 has zero recorded benchmark results, an average score of 0, and a 50th percentile ranking. Any selection based purely on measured performance must favor the Intel part, since it is the only one with performance data in the database.

The Intel part's position among its nearest rivals confirms its standing. It sits within 0.1 percent of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H and the Intel Core i5-13500, and it matches the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX and Intel Core Ultra 3 205 with a 0 percent delta. This places the Core 7 240H in a competitive cluster of mobile and desktop processors, and its 5.20 GHz boost clock and 24 MB of shared L3 cache support its strong single-thread and multi-thread results.

The Qualcomm part offers a different architectural profile: 18 cores, a 3 nm TSMC process, a 4.00 GHz base clock, 152.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. These specifications suggest a processor designed for high core counts and power efficiency, but without benchmark data, the database cannot confirm how those specifications translate into application performance. The 220 mm² die size and the per-core L1 cache of 288 KB indicate a large, modern design, yet no measurements exist to validate its execution.

For workloads covered by the recorded Cinebench and PassMark tests, the Intel Core 7 240H is the only option with verified results. The data shows it delivers a multi-core R23 score of 15,764 and a single-thread PassMark score of 3,782. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-88-100 remains an unmeasured entity in this database. Users who require benchmark-verified performance should select the Intel part. Users who prioritize the architectural traits of the Qualcomm part, such as its 18 cores and 3 nm process, must accept that no recorded measurements support its performance claims. The data does not support a performance comparison between these two processors, because only one of them has performance data.