Intel Core 7 253PQE vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE records an average benchmark score of 55919, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H scores 47468. The Core 7 253PQE also holds a higher percentile rank at 91 versus 89 for the Ultra X9 378H.

Q: How does the Core 7 253PQE compare to its closest rival in the database?

A: The Core 7 253PQE sits 0.2% below the Intel Core i9-14900HX (score 56004) and 0.6% below the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 (score 56273). Its performance margin to these rivals is very narrow, within 1.1% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX.

Q: What is the performance gap between the two chips in multi-core rendering?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H leads in Cinebench multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X9 378H scores 32553 against 31390 for the Core 7 253PQE, a 3.6% advantage. The same 3.6% edge appears in R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Which processor wins in integer math workloads?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE dominates PassMark integer math with a score of 137795 versus 92603 for the Core Ultra X9 378H. That is a 48.8% lead, the largest single-test margin between the two processors.

Q: Does the Core Ultra X9 378H have better single-core performance?

A: Yes, but only slightly. The Ultra X9 378H scores 4453 in PassMark single-thread tests versus 4389 for the Core 7 253PQE, a 1.4% edge. Cinebench single-core tests show a similar pattern, with a 3.5% to 3.6% advantage for the Ultra X9 378H.

Q: What does the overall win count look like in head-to-head tests?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, while the Core 7 253PQE wins 5. Despite this, the Core 7 253PQE has the higher average benchmark score due to the magnitude of its wins in specific tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Intel Core 7 253PQE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 253PQE has 10 cores with 20 threads via Hyper-Threading, whereas the Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, indicating a design without simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra X9 378H has more physical cores, but the Core 7 253PQE has more logical threads.

Cache layouts also diverge. The Core 7 253PQE features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 33 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X9 378H offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 253PQE therefore carries nearly double the L3 cache.

Clock speeds favor the Core 7 253PQE. Its base clock is 3.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, compared to 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost on the Ultra X9 378H. Power targets are very different: the Core 7 253PQE has a TDP of 125 W, while the Ultra X9 378H is rated at 25 W, reflecting their desktop versus mobile positioning.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Core 7 253PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel access and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X only, also dual-channel, but with a higher 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the Core 7 253PQE but not on the Ultra X9 378H.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 7 253PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra X9 378H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 7 253PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, and the Ultra X9 378H uses Arc B390.

The platforms are incompatible. The Core 7 253PQE uses Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop segment, with a launch MSRP of $409. The Ultra X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540 and targets the mobile segment. The Core 7 253PQE was released in March 2026, while the Ultra X9 378H followed in April 2026.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a clear split. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is the stronger choice for single-core and lightly threaded workloads, winning every Cinebench test (single and multi-core) and the PassMark single-thread test. It also wins in data encryption, floating-point math, prime number finding, and physics simulations. For users prioritizing rendering speed, encryption throughput, or scientific floating-point work, the Ultra X9 378H delivers consistent wins across the board.

The Intel Core 7 253PQE, despite losing the majority of head-to-head tests, claims the higher average benchmark score (55919 versus 47468). Its victories are concentrated in integer-heavy and data-throughput tasks. It wins integer math by 48.8%, data compression by 26.1%, random string sorting by 21.4%, and multithreaded PassMark by 8.8%. It also edges out the Ultra X9 378H in extended instructions by 3.4%.

The Core 7 253PQE is the better option for workloads that depend on integer arithmetic, compression, sorting, and general multithreaded throughput. The Ultra X9 378H is the better option for rendering, encryption, floating-point computation, and single-thread responsiveness. The choice depends entirely on which workload class matters more, as neither processor dominates the other across all test categories.

The 125 W TDP of the Core 7 253PQE versus the 25 W TDP of the Ultra X9 378H also suggests very different deployment contexts, but the performance data shows the Ultra X9 378H achieves competitive or superior results in many tests despite the much lower power envelope.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 253PQE | Intel Core Ultra X9 378H |

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

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

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

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 33 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 | 2026-03-08 | 2026-04-03 |

| Launch MSRP | $409 | None |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the entire comparison is PassMark integer math. The Core 7 253PQE scores 137795, which is 48.8% higher than the 92603 posted by the Ultra X9 378H. No other test comes close to this margin. This single result heavily influences the Core 7 253PQE's higher average benchmark score.

Data compression shows another large win for the Core 7 253PQE. It scores 487335 versus 386591, a 26.1% advantage. Random string sorting follows with a 21.4% lead (54222 versus 44648). The Core 7 253PQE also wins PassMark multithread by 8.8% (41656 versus 38298) and extended instructions by 3.4% (32390 versus 31315).

The Ultra X9 378H counters with wins across the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 32553 against 31390, a 3.6% lead. R20 multi-core shows 13672 versus 13183 (3.6% lead), and R15 multi-core shows 3281 versus 3163 (3.6% lead). Single-core Cinebench results are similarly consistent: R23 at 4595 versus 4431 (3.6% lead), R20 at 1929 versus 1861 (3.5% lead), and R15 at 462 versus 446 (3.5% lead).

PassMark physics favors the Ultra X9 378H by 12.7% (3404 versus 2970). Floating-point math goes to the Ultra X9 378H by 8.1% (114500 versus 105279). Data encryption shows a 14.5% lead for the Ultra X9 378H (29840 versus 25515). Prime number finding is the largest Ultra X9 378H win in percentage terms at 42.3% (357 versus 206), though the absolute scores are small. PassMark single-thread results give the Ultra X9 378H a 1.4% edge (4453 versus 4389).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 253PQE wins in workloads that stress integer arithmetic, data throughput, and parallel thread execution. PassMark integer math, data compression, and random string sorting are its strongest categories, with leads of 48.8%, 26.1%, and 21.4% respectively. The multithreaded PassMark score (8.8% lead) confirms its advantage in general parallel workloads. Extended instructions also go to the Core 7 253PQE, giving it a niche in specialized instruction-heavy code. These results align with its 20 threads, larger 33 MB L3 cache, and higher 5.70 GHz boost clock.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins in rendering, encryption, physics simulation, and single-thread performance. Every Cinebench test, both single and multi-core, goes to the Ultra X9 378H by roughly 3.5% to 3.6%. Data encryption shows a 14.5% advantage, physics a 12.7% advantage, and floating-point math an 8.1% advantage. Prime number finding, a test sensitive to integer throughput per core, goes to the Ultra X9 378H by 42.3%. The PassMark single-thread score gives it a smaller 1.4% edge. Its 16 physical cores, larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, and higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s support these wins.

For rendering pipelines and Cinebench-style workloads, the Ultra X9 378H is the stronger part. For compression, sorting, integer-heavy database operations, and general multithreaded throughput, the Core 7 253PQE is the stronger part. The data shows a genuine split, with each processor winning in distinct and consistent workload families.