Intel Core Ultra X7 368H vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The data paints an unambiguous picture: the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins every single recorded head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Processor N150. Across the four shared tests in the database, the Ultra X7 368H takes all four wins, with no counterpoints for the N150. This is not a close contest by any measure, and the margin of victory in each test is substantial.

For the Core Ultra X7 368H, the wins are concentrated in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra X7 368H scores 28,221 against the N150's 2,590.5, a delta of 989.4%. That is a nearly 10x gap in raw multi-core rendering performance. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows a similar pattern, with the Ultra X7 368H at 2,844 versus 422.5, a 573.1% advantage. These results indicate that the Ultra X7 368H is designed for sustained, heavily threaded workloads such as video rendering, 3D modeling, and compile tasks.

Single-threaded performance also favors the Ultra X7 368H decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3,984 versus 935, a 326.1% lead. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows 401 versus 153.15, a 161.8% advantage. These numbers suggest the Ultra X7 368H delivers significantly higher per-core throughput, which benefits everyday responsiveness, lightweight coding, and older or less parallelized applications.

The Intel Processor N150, by contrast, has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its role in the database is different: it sits at the 28th percentile among all CPUs, while the Ultra X7 368H sits at the 87th percentile. The N150's average benchmark score is 1,025, placing it alongside older desktop parts like the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and the Intel Core i3-4340 in the nearest rivals list. The Ultra X7 368H's average score of 40,518 puts it in company with the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and Intel Xeon 6507P. The use-case split is therefore clear: the Ultra X7 368H targets performance-heavy mobile computing, while the N150 targets low-power, efficiency-oriented tasks where raw speed is not the priority.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28,221, while the Intel Processor N150 scores 2,590.5. The delta is 989.4% in favor of the Ultra X7 368H.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap between the two processors?

A: The Ultra X7 368H leads by 326.1% in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 3,984 versus the N150's 935. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the lead is 161.8%, with scores of 401 and 153.15 respectively.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of core count?

A: The Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Both processors have no hyper-threading, as threads equal cores in each case.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Ultra X7 368H is built on a 3 nm process, while the Intel Processor N150 uses a 10 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor supports higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra X7 368H supports dual-channel LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The N150 supports single-channel DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 watts, while the N150 has a TDP of 6 watts. This indicates the N150 is designed for much lower power consumption.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers four Cinebench tests, and the Ultra X7 368H wins all of them by wide margins. The most striking result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Ultra X7 368H produces 28,221 points, while the N150 manages 2,590.5 points. That is a 989.4% delta, meaning the Ultra X7 368H delivers roughly ten times the multi-core rendering throughput. For context, the N150's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U, both scoring around 1,024 to 1,026 on average. The Ultra X7 368H's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core 7 253PE and AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, average around 40,426 to 40,585, which is over 39,000 points higher.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the gap is similarly large but slightly smaller in percentage terms. The Ultra X7 368H scores 2,844, and the N150 scores 422.5, a 573.1% delta. The absolute difference of 2,421.5 points shows that even in an older benchmark, the multi-core advantage is overwhelming.

Single-threaded performance tells the same story, albeit with smaller percentage gaps. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra X7 368H scores 3,984, and the N150 scores 935, a 326.1% delta. The absolute difference of 3,049 points is notable because single-threaded tests typically compress the gap between high-end and low-end parts. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra X7 368H scores 401, and the N150 scores 153.15, a 161.8% delta. The absolute difference of 247.85 points is substantial given the lower overall scores in R15.

The database also includes additional benchmark results for the Ultra X7 368H that are not available for the N150. These include PassMark tests such as data compression (312,927), data encryption (25,228), floating point math (105,681), integer math (88,083), and physics (2,857). The N150 has no entries for these tests in the recorded data, so no direct comparison is possible. However, the existing head-to-head results are consistent: the Ultra X7 368H dominates in every measured category.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The base clock of the Ultra X7 368H is 2.00 GHz, and the boost clock is 5.00 GHz. The N150 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The base clock difference is particularly stark, with the N150 running at a very low idle-like base frequency.

Cache configurations also diverge significantly. The Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The N150 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache difference alone is 12 MB, which affects how much data can be stored close to the cores for repeated access.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory on a single-channel bus with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The bandwidth gap is 115.2 GB/s, which is a factor of four in favor of the Ultra X7 368H.

The PCIe configurations differ as well. The Ultra X7 368H uses Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the N150 uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The newer PCIe generation on the Ultra X7 368H provides higher per-lane bandwidth for connected devices. The integrated graphics also differ: the Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390, while the N150 uses UHD Graphics 730.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540, and the N150 uses Intel BGA 1264. The production status for both is listed as Active, but the release dates differ: the Ultra X7 368H was released on January 4, 2026, while the N150 was released on November 19, 2024.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between the two processors is fundamental. The Ultra X7 368H is based on the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 3. The process node is 3 nm, which is a leading-edge manufacturing technology. The N150 is based on the Twin Lake architecture and is listed under the Alder Lake-N generation. Its process node is 10 nm, which is several generations older.

The core design philosophies differ accordingly. The Ultra X7 368H uses a per-core L2 cache of 2.5 MB, which is a large private cache allocation for each of its 16 cores. The N150 uses a shared L2 cache of 2 MB across all 4 cores, which is a much smaller and less flexible arrangement. The L1 cache also reflects this: 192 KB per core on the Ultra X7 368H versus 96 KB per core on the N150.

The memory architecture reinforces the performance gap. The Ultra X7 368H's dual-channel LPDDR5X support with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth is designed to feed a high-core-count processor with substantial throughput. The N150's single-channel support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for a low-power 4-core part but would bottleneck any attempt to scale performance.

The integrated graphics units also represent different tiers. The Ultra X7 368H pairs with Arc B390, which is a discrete-class graphics solution integrated into the package. The N150 uses UHD Graphics 730, which is a basic integrated graphics unit intended for display output and light acceleration. The database does not include graphics benchmark scores, but the specification difference indicates a wide gap in GPU compute capability.

The power envelope is the clearest architectural indicator of intent. The Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 watts, which allows for sustained high performance in a mobile form factor. The N150 has a TDP of 6 watts, which is a quarter of the Ultra X7 368H's power budget. This positions the N150 for fanless or ultra-low-power devices where battery life and thermals take priority over performance.

The generation labels also signal different design eras. The Ultra X7 368H is part of the Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) generation, while the N150 is part of the Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) generation. The Panther Lake design is a newer architecture with a smaller process node, more cores, and newer memory and PCIe standards. The Twin Lake N150 is an incremental update in the low-power segment, focused on efficiency rather than capability.