Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 7 251TE offers both more physical cores and simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE scores 3602 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 63.7% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H's 2200.5. This is the largest single benchmark advantage for either processor.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R20 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 13101 versus 10717 for the Intel Core 7 251TE, an 18.2% advantage. The Ultra X9 also leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core with 2955 versus 2572.

Q: What is the difference in manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE uses a 10 nm process with a 215 mm² die, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses a 3 nm process. The Ultra X9 does not have a recorded die size in the database.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H does not. The Core 7 251TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, whereas the Ultra X9 supports LPDDR5X.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466, compared to 41650 for the Intel Core 7 251TE. Both sit at the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 7 251TE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture and is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. Its die measures 215 mm². The processor is a desktop part with 24 cores and 32 threads, indicating support for hyper-threading. It runs on Intel Socket 1700 and has a base clock of 1.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its thermal design power is 45 W.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at Intel. This is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540 with 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it has no hyper-threading. Base clock is 2.10 GHz and boost clock is 5.10 GHz, with a 25 W TDP.

Cache organization differs substantially. The Core 7 251TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and only 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Despite fewer cores, the Ultra X9 provides a larger per-core cache allocation.

Memory support splits the two. The Core 7 251TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC capability. The Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X dual-channel memory with a higher 153.6 GB/s bandwidth but no ECC. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 7 251TE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 251TE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra X9 388H uses Arc B390. The Core 7 251TE has a launch MSRP of $384; the Ultra X9 388H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both parts are currently active in production. Release dates are 2025-01-12 for the Core 7 251TE and 2026-01-04 for the Ultra X9 388H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows 17 recorded comparisons, with the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H winning 13 and the Intel Core 7 251TE winning 4. The largest margin belongs to the Core 7 251TE in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3602 versus 2200.5, a 63.7% lead. This is a decisive single-threaded advantage.

The Core 7 251TE also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 25518 versus 18911, a 34.9% margin. In PassMark integer math, it scores 125739 against 90882, a 38.4% advantage. Its fourth win is Cinebench R15 single-core with 362 versus 309.5, a 17% lead.

The Ultra X9 388H dominates the remaining tests. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 13101 versus 10717, an 18.2% lead. The same 18.2% margin appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 1849 versus 1512. Cinebench R15 multi-core goes to the Ultra X9 with 2955 versus 2572, a 13% difference.

PassMark tests show a broad sweep for the Ultra X9. Data compression favors it with 361763 versus 334399, a 7.6% margin. Data encryption shows 28490 versus 22176, a 22.2% lead. Extended instructions produce 29943 versus 16974, a 43.3% gap. Prime number finding gives 358 versus 140, a 60.9% advantage. Floating point math scores 112550 versus 85607, a 23.9% lead. Multithread performance delivers 36811 versus 30022, an 18.4% edge. Physics tests show 3226 versus 1938, a 39.9% gap. Random string sorting results in 44010 versus 39643, a 9.9% margin. Single-thread PassMark scores 4280 versus 3568, a 16.6% lead.

The average benchmark score reflects this split: the Ultra X9 388H averages 44466, about 6.8% higher than the Core 7 251TE's 41650. Both processors sit at the 88th percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 251TE include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H with an average score of 41621 (0.1% behind), the Intel Core i7-14650HX at 41576 (0.2% behind), the Intel Core i7-12850HX at 41779 (0.3% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-14700T at 41914 (0.6% ahead). The Ultra X9 388H's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D at 44573 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i9-13950HX at 44342 (0.3% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 at 44309 (0.4% behind), and the Intel Core i5-13600 at 44240 (0.5% behind).

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates two processors with opposite strengths. The Intel Core 7 251TE is the choice for workloads that depend on single-threaded speed and integer-heavy processing. Its 63.7% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 38.4% lead in integer math are substantial. The 24-core, 32-thread configuration with 36 MB of L3 cache also delivers strong multi-core results in Cinebench R23, where it leads by 34.9%.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins the broader benchmark suite. It leads in 13 of 17 comparisons, including all PassMark tests except integer math. Its 60.9% advantage in prime number finding and 43.3% lead in extended instructions indicate superior per-core compute efficiency. The 3 nm process and higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s contribute to its strong showing in memory-sensitive tasks like data compression and encryption.

For desktop users with Socket 1700 motherboards who value single-threaded performance and ECC memory support, the Core 7 251TE is the logical pick. For mobile systems where power efficiency matters, the Ultra X9 388H's 25 W TDP versus 45 W, combined with its wider benchmark wins, makes it the stronger overall performer. The Ultra X9 388H also carries newer integrated graphics with Arc B390, which may matter for systems without discrete GPUs. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiating factor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 251TE | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |

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

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.40 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $384 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SRQAXQ5ZG | SA4QWQ9EK |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 251TE wins in scenarios that reward high boost clocks and many cores. Its 5.40 GHz boost clock is the highest among the two, and the 24-core, 32-thread layout handles heavily parallel integer workloads well. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 34.9% advantage, making it suitable for rendering tasks that scale with thread count. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache and ECC memory support also point to workstation-style use cases where data integrity and large cache working sets matter. The desktop form factor with 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes allows for expansive expansion options.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins in almost every other measurable category. Its higher base clock of 2.10 GHz and per-core L2 cache of 3 MB give it strong single-threaded fundamentals in PassMark tests, where it leads by 16.6%. The 60.9% advantage in prime number finding and 43.3% lead in extended instructions suggest superior instruction-level efficiency, likely from the newer 3 nm process. Its 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is 71.7% higher than the Core 7 251TE, which explains wins in data compression (7.6%) and random string sorting (9.9%). The 25 W TDP makes it far more suitable for battery-powered or thermally constrained systems. The mobile BGA 2540 socket and 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes indicate a compact, integrated design.

For workloads like data encryption, the Ultra X9 leads by 22.2%, and for physics calculations it leads by 39.9%. Floating point math favors the Ultra X9 by 23.9%. The only clear wins for the Core 7 251TE outside single-threaded Cinebench tests are integer math and Cinebench R23 multi-core. The database shows the Ultra X9 388H as the more balanced processor overall, with a higher average benchmark score and more total wins. The Core 7 251TE remains competitive specifically for users who prioritize single-threaded responsiveness and massive multi-threaded integer throughput in a desktop environment.