Intel Core 7 253PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a significant challenge for direct comparison: the Intel Core 7 253PQE has a full suite of 17 recorded benchmark scores, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence of data for the Ultra 7 155HL means a traditional head-to-head score comparison is impossible. The recorded data for the 253PQE, however, places it at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong overall performance. Its average benchmark score is 55,919, which is nearly identical to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-14900HX, which scores 56,004. The 253PQE trails that rival by just 0.2%. It also sits 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390, which scores 56,273, and 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470, which scores 56,306. The data shows the 253PQE is 1.1% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX, which scores 56,555.

Looking at the 253PQE's individual scores, the Cinebench results show a strong multi-core capability. The R23 multi-core score is 31,390, while the single-core score is 4,431. The R20 results show 13,183 for multi-core and 1,861 for single-core. The R15 results show 3,163 for multi-core and 446 for single-core. These numbers indicate a processor that delivers consistent performance across different rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite for the 253PQE reveals specific strengths. The multithread score is 41,656, and the single-thread score is 4,389. In data compression, the score is 487,335, which is a standout number. Data encryption scores 25,515, and extended instructions score 32,390. The floating-point math score is 105,279, while integer math is higher at 137,795. The physics score is 2,970, and find prime numbers scores 206. Random string sorting is 54,222. These results show a processor that is particularly strong in integer math and data compression, suggesting efficient handling of parallel integer workloads.

Since the Ultra 7 155HL has no benchmark entries, the database cannot compute a win count for either processor. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, reflecting the lack of comparative data. This is a critical point: the database records no scores for the 155HL, so any analysis of its performance must rely on its architecture and specifications rather than measured results. The 253PQE, by contrast, has a rich dataset, but without a counterpart score, the head-to-head section remains one-sided in data availability, not necessarily in performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 253PQE wins in every measurable category because it is the only processor with recorded benchmarks. Its Cinebench multi-core scores suggest a capability for heavily threaded rendering tasks, with the R23 score of 31,390 indicating a strong position for content creation workloads. The single-core R23 score of 4,431 shows it can also handle lightly threaded tasks with speed. The PassMark integer math score of 137,795 and data compression score of 487,335 point to advantages in productivity and database-style operations. The floating-point math score of 105,279 indicates solid performance for scientific or engineering calculations.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL, lacking any benchmark scores, has no recorded wins. Its architecture includes 16 cores and 22 threads, which is more cores and threads than the 253PQE's 10 cores and 20 threads. This specification suggests potential in multi-threaded environments, but the database provides no measured evidence to confirm this. The 155HL also uses a 7 nm process node, while the 253PQE uses a 10 nm node, which could imply different efficiency characteristics, but again, no performance data exists to validate any advantage.

The data implies that the 253PQE is a proven performer across a range of tests, while the 155HL remains an unmeasured entity. In a use-case split, the 253PQE would be the choice for any workload where measured performance matters, such as rendering, encoding, or heavy multitasking. The 155HL's higher core count could theoretically make it competitive in multi-threaded scenarios, but the database offers no confirmation. The average benchmark score of 0 for the 155HL reinforces its status as a processor with no recorded performance data, placing it at the 50th percentile by default, not by achievement.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their underlying design. The Intel Core 7 253PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process node. It features 10 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. Its thermal design power (TDP) is 125 watts. The processor uses the Intel Socket 1700 and supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and it includes ECC memory support. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics come in the form of UHD Graphics 770.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL uses the Meteor Lake architecture, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS codename. It is built on a 7 nm process node, which is a different node size than the 253PQE. It has 16 cores and 22 threads, with a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The TDP is significantly lower at 45 watts. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 and supports dual-channel memory with the same bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Memory support is listed as DDR5, with a note that it depends on the motherboard. The 155HL does not support ECC memory. Its PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), which is fewer lanes and an older generation than the 253PQE. Integrated graphics are provided by Arc Xe-LPG 128EU.

The cache configurations also differ. The 253PQE has L1 cache of 80 KB per core, L2 cache of 2 MB per core, and L3 cache of 33 MB shared. The 155HL has L1 cache of 112 KB per core, L2 cache of 2 MB per core, and L3 cache of 24 MB shared. The 253PQE has a larger L3 cache, while the 155HL has a larger L1 cache per core. The process node difference is notable: 10 nm for Bartlett Lake versus 7 nm for Meteor Lake, which could impact power efficiency and density. The TDP difference is substantial, with the 253PQE rated at 125 watts and the 155HL at 45 watts, suggesting very different power envelopes and cooling requirements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 253PQE also has a higher base clock at 3.50 GHz compared to 1.40 GHz for the 155HL.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has more cores and threads with 16 cores and 22 threads. The Intel Core 7 253PQE has 10 cores and 20 threads. The 155HL has a higher core count, but the 253PQE has fewer threads per core.

Q: What is the difference in process node technology?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE uses a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL uses a 7 nm process node. This may affect power efficiency and transistor density, though the database does not include specific measurements for the 155HL.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL does not. This makes the 253PQE potentially more suitable for error-sensitive workloads.

Q: What are the memory support differences?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL supports DDR5, with the note that support depends on the motherboard. Both use a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL uses Arc Xe-LPG 128EU. The database does not include benchmark scores for either iGPU, so their relative performance is not measured here.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 253PQE | Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL |

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

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 22 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 1.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Meteor Lake-PS |

| Architecture | Not listed | Meteor Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 33 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 (depends on motherboard) |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG 128EU |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-04-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $409 | $438 |

| Part Number | SA4QA | SRN2Z |

The two processors share the same dual-channel memory bus and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both are desktop market segments and are actively in production. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The 253PQE was released later and has a lower launch MSRP of $409, while the 155HL has a launch MSRP of $438.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core 7 253PQE for any user who relies on measured performance. It has a comprehensive set of benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of 55,919, and a 91st percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Core i9-14900HX and AMD Ryzen AI Max 390, are within a fraction of a percent in score, showing the 253PQE competes at a high level. The processor's high boost clock of 5.70 GHz and substantial L3 cache of 33 MB support its strong single-core and multi-core results. For tasks like Cinebench rendering, the 253PQE delivers a multi-core R23 score of 31,390, indicating solid capability for demanding workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded benchmark scores, placing it at the 50th percentile with an average score of 0. This is not a statement of performance, but a statement of missing data. Its 16 cores and 22 threads suggest potential for multi-threaded tasks, and its 7 nm node and 45 W TDP indicate a more power-efficient design. However, without measured results, the database cannot confirm any advantage. The 155HL also has a lower boost clock of 4.80 GHz and a smaller L3 cache of 24 MB, which could limit single-core and cache-sensitive performance.

Users who need a processor with proven, recorded performance across a range of benchmarks should consider the 253PQE. Its data shows strength in integer math, data compression, and multi-core rendering. Users who prioritize lower power consumption and a higher core count, and who are willing to accept a lack of measured data, may look at the 155HL. The 155HL's higher TDP efficiency and newer process node are notable, but they remain theoretical advantages without benchmark confirmation. The verdict from the database is straightforward: the 253PQE has the numbers to back its performance claims, while the 155HL does not.