Intel Core Ultra X7 358H vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains four benchmark comparisons, and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins all of them by substantial margins. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 18,747 against 2,590.5 for the Intel Processor N150, a delta of 623.7%. This result reflects the fundamental difference in parallel throughput between the two parts, as the Core Ultra X7 358H delivers roughly seven times the multi-threaded rendering score.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra X7 358H at 3,027 and the N150 at 422.5, a 616.4% advantage. The single-core results are closer in relative terms but still decisive. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra X7 358H posts 2,080 versus 935 for the N150, a 122.5% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core sees the Core Ultra X7 358H at 301.5 against 153.15, a 96.9% advantage, meaning the higher-end chip nearly doubles the entry-level processor in a lightly threaded workload.

The aggregate benchmark averages reinforce the split. The Core Ultra X7 358H carries an average benchmark score of 40,967 and sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The N150 averages 1,025 and lands in the 28th percentile. That is a gap of roughly 40x in average score, far larger than the Cinebench deltas because the Core Ultra X7 358H has additional benchmark results covering encryption, compression, and math workloads, while the N150 only has Cinebench entries recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families and process nodes. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake architecture, listed as the Ultra X7 generation (Panther Lake-H), and is built on Intel's 3 nm process. The Intel Processor N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture, listed under the Alder Lake-N generation, and is built on a 10 nm process node. This node gap contributes significantly to the performance and efficiency differences visible in the data.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither part uses Hyper-Threading, so thread counts equal core counts in both cases. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The N150 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The low base clock on the N150 is typical for a low-power design that relies on boost behavior for bursts of activity.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The N150 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra X7 358H therefore offers substantially more aggregate cache, which helps feed its wider execution resources.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. That is a fourfold difference in theoretical memory bandwidth, which matters for workloads that stream data through the cache hierarchy.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core Ultra X7 358H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the N150 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390 graphics, while the N150 uses UHD Graphics 730. Both parts have ECC memory disabled, both are mobile market segments, both are production active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The thermal design point differs considerably. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a TDP of 25, while the N150 has a TDP of 6. This fits the intended usage: the Core Ultra X7 358H targets more demanding mobile workloads, while the N150 targets low-power, always-on systems.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X7 358H wins every recorded benchmark comparison, so the question is not which part wins a given test, but how large the margin is and what that implies for use cases.

In multi-core rendering and compute workloads, the Core Ultra X7 358H dominates. The Cinebench R23 multi-core delta of 623.7% and R15 multi-core delta of 616.4% indicate that the 16-core, 3 nm design can handle parallel workloads that the 4-core N150 cannot approach. The additional benchmark data for the Core Ultra X7 358H supports this: it records a PassMark multi-thread score of 33,802, a floating-point math score of 103,842, an integer math score of 83,147, and a data compression score of 332,508. The N150 has no recorded results for these tests, which further limits its profile to lighter duties.

In single-core performance, the Core Ultra X7 358H still wins, but the margin is smaller. The Cinebench R23 single-core delta is 122.5%, and the R15 single-core delta is 96.9%. This suggests that the N150's boost clock of 3.60 GHz allows it to remain competitive in lightly threaded tasks relative to its own multi-core capability, but it still trails the Core Ultra X7 358H by roughly a factor of two in the recorded tests.

The N150's role in the database is defined by its low power envelope and its position in the 28th percentile. Its average benchmark score of 1,025 places it alongside older desktop and mobile parts, such as the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and Intel Core i3-4340, both within 0.1% of its average score. The Core Ultra X7 358H, by contrast, sits near the 87th percentile and trades margins of less than 1% with the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G, and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The Core Ultra X7 358H is for systems that need sustained multi-core throughput, high memory bandwidth, and modern PCIe Gen 5 connectivity. The N150 is for systems where the 6 TDP and single-channel memory are acceptable trade-offs for lower power draw.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H scores 18,747 versus 2,590.5 for the N150, a 623.7% advantage.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the N150 boosts to 3.60 GHz.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X, while the N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: No. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the thermal design point difference?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has a TDP of 25, and the N150 has a TDP of 6.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has an average benchmark score of 40,967, and the N150 has an average benchmark score of 1,025.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on every major specification field recorded in the database.

| Field | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H | Intel Processor N150 |

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

| Cores | 16 | 4 |

| Threads | 16 | 4 |

| Base clock | 1.90 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 25 | 6 |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2540 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Codename | Panther Lake | Twin Lake |

| Generation | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) | Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 cache | 192 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 cache | 18 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Arc B390 | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release date | 2026-01-04 | 2024-11-19 |

| Part number | SA4RAQ9ET | SRPNR |

Both parts are Intel designs, both are in the mobile market segment, both have ECC memory disabled, both have locked multipliers, and both are listed as production active.

The Verdict

The benchmark data divides these two processors into entirely different performance classes. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H delivers multi-core Cinebench scores that are more than 600% higher than the N150, and its average benchmark score of 40,967 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The N150, with an average score of 1,025 and a 28th percentile ranking, aligns with much older and less capable hardware.

The Core Ultra X7 358H is the appropriate choice for any workload that benefits from 16 cores, 18 MB of shared L3, dual-channel LPDDR5X memory at 153.6 GB/s, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity. Its 3 nm process node and 4.80 GHz boost clock also give it a strong single-core profile, as shown by the 122.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The Intel Processor N150 is the appropriate choice for systems where the 6 TDP budget and single-channel memory are the primary constraints. Its 4 cores, 6 MB of shared L3, and 3.60 GHz boost clock are sufficient for light tasks, and its 10 nm process node reflects an older but well-understood design. The data does not show any recorded benchmark where the N150 beats the Core Ultra X7 358H, so the decision rests entirely on power budget and system requirements rather than performance expectations.