Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the stronger overall performer in the database, taking 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its wins are broad, covering Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests, PassMark single-thread, multithread, physics, floating point math, encryption, prime number finding, and extended instruction workloads. The Intel Core 7 251TE claims only 3 wins, but those are decisive in specific integer-heavy and compression tasks.

For a desktop build where the workload is integer math, data compression, or random string sorting, the Core 7 251TE is the pick. It also brings ECC memory support, which matters for certain workstation reliability scenarios. The Core Ultra X7 368H, meanwhile, is the choice for mobile systems, general productivity, floating point work, and anything that benefits from higher per-core performance. It is a 25 W part versus the 45 W desktop chip, yet it still leads in most tests. If the workload is mixed or unknown, the Core Ultra X7 368H is the safer default. If the workload is specifically integer-heavy, the Core 7 251TE has a clear edge that the average score does not reveal.

Architecture Differences

The Core 7 251TE is a desktop part built on the Bartlett Lake architecture and the 10 nm process node. It uses Intel Socket 1700 and ships with 24 cores and 32 threads. The Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile part on the Panther Lake architecture, built on the 3 nm node, and uses Intel BGA 2540. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning no hyperthreading on this part.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Core 7 251TE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 18 MB of shared L3. Despite half the L3, the Ultra X7 wins most tests, which points to the newer process and per-core cache design compensating for the smaller shared pool.

Memory support also splits the two. The Core 7 251TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, plus ECC memory. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses LPDDR5X, dual-channel, with a much higher 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth, but no ECC. The desktop chip offers Gen 5 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes, while the mobile chip offers Gen 5 PCIe with only 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 7 251TE has UHD Graphics 770, the Core Ultra X7 368H has Arc B390.

The Core 7 251TE boosts to 5.40 GHz from a 1.40 GHz base. The Core Ultra X7 368H boosts to 5.00 GHz from a 2.00 GHz base. The mobile chip has a lower TDP at 25 W versus 45 W. The Core 7 251TE was released in January 2025 with a launch MSRP of $384. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a later release date in January 2026 and no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra X7 368H dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2844 versus 2572, a 9.6% edge. Single-core in R15 is 401 versus 362, also 9.7% ahead. The pattern holds in R20 multi-core, 11852 versus 10717, and R20 single-core, 1673 versus 1512, both at 9.6% deltas. In R23 multi-core, the Ultra X7 scores 28221 against 25518, and in R23 single-core, 3984 versus 3602. Every Cinebench result lands at roughly a 9.6% to 9.7% advantage for the mobile chip.

PassMark results show a more mixed picture. The Core 7 251TE wins integer math by a massive margin: 125739 versus 88083, a 42.8% lead. It also wins data compression, 334399 versus 312927, a 6.9% edge, and random string sorting, 39643 versus 38093, a 4.1% win.

The Core Ultra X7 368H answers with a 33.9% win in extended instructions, 25669 versus 16974, and a 56.4% win in prime number finding, 321 versus 140. Floating point math goes to the Ultra X7 at 105681 versus 85607, a 19% gap. Physics is 2857 versus 1938, a 32.2% win. Data encryption goes to the Ultra X7, 25228 versus 22176, a 12.1% margin. PassMark multithread favors the Ultra X7, 32956 versus 30022, an 8.9% lead. Single-thread also goes to the Ultra X7, 4005 versus 3568, a 10.9% edge.

The overall averages are close. The Core 7 251TE sits at an average benchmark score of 41650, with a percentile rank of 88. The Core Ultra X7 368H has an average of 40518, with a percentile rank of 87. The nearest rival data reflects this near parity: the Core 7 251TE is 0.1% ahead of the Core Ultra 7 265H and 0.2% ahead of the Core i7-14650HX, while trailing the Core i7-12850HX by 0.3% and the Core i7-14700T by 0.6%. The Core Ultra X7 368H trails the Core 7 253PE by 0.1% and the Core 5 223PE by 0.2%, while leading the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H by 0.2% and the Intel Xeon 6507P by 0.2%. The delta between the two reviewed chips is small in aggregate, but the distribution of wins is lopsided.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Why does the Core 7 251TE win overall averages if it loses most benchmarks?

A: The Core 7 251TE has an average benchmark score of 41650 versus 40518 for the Core Ultra X7 368H. Its massive 42.8% win in integer math and solid wins in data compression and random string sorting pull its average up, despite losing 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: Which chip is better for single-threaded workloads?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H. It wins PassMark single-thread at 4005 versus 3568, a 10.9% lead, and wins every Cinebench single-core test by about 9.6% to 9.7%.

Q: Does the Core 7 251TE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra X7 368H does not.

Q: Which chip has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H has 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth using LPDDR5X. The Core 7 251TE has 89.6 GB/s using DDR4 or DDR5.

Q: Is the Core Ultra X7 368H a desktop or mobile processor?

A: The database lists it as a Mobile segment part on Intel BGA 2540. The Core 7 251TE is a Desktop part on Intel Socket 1700.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 251TE wins in three specific areas: integer math, data compression, and random string sorting. The integer math result is the standout, at 42.8% ahead. This makes the desktop chip the logical choice for workloads like code compilation, financial modeling, database operations, or any task that churns through large volumes of integer arithmetic. The data compression win at 6.9% and random string sorting win at 4.1% reinforce this profile: the Core 7 251TE is a sorting and compression specialist.

The Core Ultra X7 368H wins everywhere else. It takes all six Cinebench tests, both multi-core and single-core, by a consistent 9.6% to 9.7%. It wins PassMark multithread, single-thread, physics, floating point math, extended instructions, prime number finding, and data encryption. The biggest margins are in prime number finding at 56.4% ahead and extended instructions at 33.9% ahead. That makes the Ultra X7 the better choice for scientific computing, floating point simulation, encryption-heavy workloads, physics calculations, and any application that leverages extended instruction sets. It also achieves all of this at a 25 W TDP versus the 45 W TDP of the Core 7 251TE, which is notable for thermally constrained systems.

The near-identical average scores (41650 versus 40518, a difference of roughly 2.8% in favor of the desktop chip) and the 88th versus 87th percentile rankings tell the same story from different angles: these are very close parts overall, but their strengths are sharply separated. The Core 7 251TE is a desktop integer workhorse with ECC support. The Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile processor that wins most tests, especially single-thread and floating point, with significantly higher memory bandwidth and a much smaller physical footprint. Choose based on the workload, not the average.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in nearly every major specification. The Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads; the Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 1.40 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.40 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP is 45 W versus 25 W. The Core 7 251TE uses Intel Socket 1700; the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540. Process nodes are 10 nm versus 3 nm.

Cache differs across all levels. L1 is 80 KB per core on the Core 7 251TE versus 192 KB per core on the Core Ultra X7 368H. L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 is 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4/DDR5 versus LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. ECC is supported on the Core 7 251TE but not the Core Ultra X7 368H. PCIe lanes are 16 on the desktop chip versus 4 on the mobile chip, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc B390. Release dates are January 2025 versus January 2026. The Core 7 251TE has a launch MSRP of $384; the Core Ultra X7 368H has no recorded MSRP. Both parts are Active in production status and neither has an unlocked multiplier.