Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison
Intel Core 7 251E
Core Ultra X7 368H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H
The Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the clear performance leader in this comparison, recording an average benchmark score of 40,518 and sitting at the 87th percentile among all CPUs tested in the database. The Intel Core 7 251E, with a 50th percentile ranking, does not have recorded benchmark scores in the database, meaning the X7 368H delivers the only measurable performance data available.
The Core Ultra X7 368H is designed for mobile platforms, using a 3 nm process node and featuring the Panther Lake architecture. The Core 7 251E is a desktop processor built on the older 10 nm process node with the Bartlett Lake codename. For users seeking verified compute performance, the X7 368H is the only option with actual benchmark results, and its 87th percentile placement confirms it sits well above most other CPUs in the database.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel families and target different platform segments. The Core 7 251E is a desktop chip using Socket 1700, built on a 10 nm process node with a die size of 257 mm². Its codename is Bartlett Lake, and it belongs to the Core 7 generation. The Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile processor using Intel BGA 2540, built on a 3 nm process node, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 with the Panther Lake architecture and Panther Lake-H generation.
Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The desktop part has a 2.10 GHz base clock and a 5.60 GHz boost clock, whereas the mobile part has a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. The Core 7 251E carries a 65 W TDP, the X7 368H a 25 W TDP.
Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 7 251E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and a 36 MB shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The mobile part has a higher per-core cache allocation, while the desktop part has twice the total L3 capacity.
Memory support differs by platform generation. The Core 7 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth and ECC support. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports only LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s and no ECC support. PCIe connectivity also differs: the desktop chip provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the mobile chip provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.
Integrated graphics are different as well. The Core 7 251E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390. Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning neither supports user overclocking.
Where Each One Wins
The Core Ultra X7 368H wins in every measurable benchmark category because the Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark results in the database. The X7 368H's data covers both single-thread and multi-thread workloads, including Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, plus a full PassMark suite.
For single-thread performance, the X7 368H records a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,984 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,005. Multi-thread performance is strong as well: the Cinebench R23 multi-core score reaches 28,221, and the PassMark multithread score is 32,956. The X7 368H also delivers a PassMark integer math score of 88,083, a floating-point math score of 105,681, and a data compression score of 312,927.
The Core 7 251E, with no benchmarks, cannot be said to win in any tested workload. However, its architectural advantages include a higher boost clock (5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz), double the L3 cache (36 MB versus 18 MB), and double the core count (24 versus 16). The 24-core, 32-thread configuration suggests the desktop part could perform well in heavily threaded workloads, but no database measurements confirm this.
The X7 368H's nearest rivals in the database reinforce its standing. It sits 0.1% behind the Intel Core 7 253PE, 0.2% behind the Intel Core 5 223PE, and 0.2% ahead of both the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and the Intel Xeon 6507P. These narrow margins place the X7 368H in a tight cluster of high-performing CPUs, all within 0.2% of each other.
FAQ
Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251E have any benchmark results in the database?
A: No. The database lists no recorded benchmarks for the Core 7 251E, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 17 recorded benchmark scores across Cinebench and PassMark tests.
Q: Which processor has the higher core count?
A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads.
Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s with LPDDR5X support, while the Intel Core 7 251E has 89.6 GB/s with DDR4 and DDR5 support.
Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core 7 251E uses a 10 nm process node.
Q: How does the Core Ultra X7 368H compare to its nearest rivals?
A: The X7 368H is 0.1% behind the Intel Core 7 253PE, 0.2% behind the Intel Core 5 223PE, 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6507P.
Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?
A: The Intel Core 7 251E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H does not.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the only processor in this comparison with recorded benchmark data, so all head-to-head results come from its performance metrics. In Cinebench R15, the X7 368H scores 2,844 in multi-core and 401 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score rises to 11,852 and the single-core score to 1,673. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score reaches 28,221 and the single-core score 3,984.
The PassMark suite shows the X7 368H's strengths across different workload types. The data compression test records 312,927, the data encryption test 25,228, and the extended instructions test 25,669. The processor finds prime numbers at a rate of 321, performs floating-point math at 105,681, and integer math at 88,083. The multithread score is 32,956, the physics score is 2,857, and random string sorting scores 38,093. Single-thread performance is measured at 4,005.
The Core 7 251E has no benchmark scores to compare against any of these results. The database shows zero wins for the Core 7 251E and zero wins for the Core Ultra X7 368H in the head-to-head benchmark section, which reflects the absence of paired test data rather than a lack of performance capability for the X7 368H.
The X7 368H's 87th percentile ranking among all CPUs places it above the large majority of processors in the database. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Core 7 253PE and Intel Core 5 223PE, score within 0.2% of the X7 368H, indicating that these three Intel mobile parts occupy a very tight performance band. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and Intel Xeon 6507P also sit within 0.2% of the X7 368H, showing strong competition from both AMD and Intel's server lineup.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The Core 7 251E is a desktop part with 24 cores and 32 threads, while the X7 368H is a mobile part with 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.10 GHz for the desktop chip and 2.00 GHz for the mobile chip. Boost clocks are 5.60 GHz and 5.00 GHz, respectively. TDP ratings are 65 W for the desktop part and 25 W for the mobile part.
The process nodes differ significantly: the Core 7 251E uses 10 nm, the X7 368H uses 3 nm. Die size is recorded for the desktop part at 257 mm², while the mobile part has no die size listed. Socket types are different: Intel Socket 1700 for the desktop chip, Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile chip.
Cache configurations differ in both size and allocation. The Core 7 251E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The desktop part has double the L3 cache, while the mobile part has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.
Memory support separates the two platforms. The Core 7 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and ECC capability. The X7 368H supports only LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and no ECC. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the desktop part and 153.6 GB/s for the mobile part. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Core 7 251E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, the X7 368H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes.
Integrated graphics are different: UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 7 251E versus Arc B390 on the X7 368H. Both processors have locked multipliers. The Core 7 251E has a launch MSRP of $384, while the X7 368H has no launch MSRP recorded. The release dates differ as well: the Core 7 251E was released on January 12, 2025, and the X7 368H on January 4, 2026. Both processors remain in active production status.