Intel Core Ultra X7 368H vs Intel Processor N250 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and the Intel Processor N250?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor N250 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Processor N250 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz.

Q: What is the difference in rated thermal design power (TDP) between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 W, whereas the Intel Processor N250 has a much lower TDP of 6 W.

Q: How do their cache configurations differ?

A: The Intel Core 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 Intel Processor N250 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory standards does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory. The Intel Processor N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Processor N250 uses a 10 nm process node.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and the Intel Processor N250 are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically of the Panther Lake-H generation, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. The Processor N250 uses the Twin Lake architecture, which is classified within the Intel Processor generation as Alder Lake-N. This architectural separation is not superficial; it determines core counts, cache hierarchy, memory pathways, and even the PCIe generation.

The Core Ultra X7 368H offers 16 cores and 16 threads, a configuration that indicates a fully populated core layout for its design. The Processor N250 offers 4 cores and 4 threads. This 4x difference in core count is a primary factor in the two processors' completely different performance envelopes. The Core Ultra X7 368H also has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Processor N250 has an extremely low base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The very low base clock of the N250 is characteristic of an ultra-low-power design, allowing it to idle at minimal speeds.

Cache architecture differs substantially. The Core Ultra X7 368H allocates 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 18 MB L3 cache. The Processor N250 allocates 96 KB of L1 cache per core, a shared 2 MB L2 cache, and a shared 6 MB L3 cache. The per-core L2 cache in the Core Ultra X7 368H is a notable design choice that gives each core its own substantial cache pool, while the N250's shared 2 MB L2 pool is much more limited.

The manufacturing process also separates these two. The Core Ultra X7 368H is fabricated on a 3 nm process node by Intel, whereas the Processor N250 is fabricated on a 10 nm process node by Intel. This process difference is directly related to the power characteristics of each chip. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 W, and the Processor N250 has a TDP of 6 W. The combination of fewer cores, a lower clock ceiling, and a larger process node allows the N250 to operate at a fraction of the power draw.

Memory support is another point of divergence. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus, giving it a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Processor N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory over a single-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a 4x advantage in theoretical memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Processor N250 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core Ultra X7 368H includes Arc B390 graphics, while the Processor N250 includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, and the Processor N250 uses the Intel BGA 1264 socket. Both processors have locked multipliers, and neither supports ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is designed for workloads that demand high core counts and high throughput. Its 16 cores, 16 threads, and boost clock of 5.00 GHz give it a decisive advantage in multi-threaded applications such as video rendering, code compilation, and scientific computation. The large 18 MB shared L3 cache and the per-core 2.5 MB L2 cache help feed those 16 cores with data, while the dual-channel LPDDR5X memory path provides 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth to keep the processor's many cores busy. The 3 nm process node and 25 W TDP indicate a processor that is intended for high-performance mobile systems where efficiency is important but raw output is the priority. The Arc B390 integrated graphics also position this chip for more demanding visual tasks that can leverage a more capable GPU core.

The Intel Processor N250 is a low-power processor designed for efficiency and basic computing tasks. Its 4 cores and 4 threads, combined with a 6 W TDP, make it suitable for fanless or passively cooled systems and workloads that do not require sustained high performance. The very low base clock of 0.10 GHz allows the N250 to conserve power when idle, and the 3.80 GHz boost clock provides a modest burst of performance when needed. The support for DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory gives system designers flexibility in choosing memory types, and the single-channel 38.4 GB/s memory bus is adequate for light productivity, web browsing, and media playback. The UHD Graphics 730 integrated GPU handles basic display output and video acceleration. The N250 is best understood as a processor for low-cost, low-power notebooks and mini PCs where battery life and thermal output are more important than computational muscle.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Processor N250 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The base clock of the Core Ultra X7 368H is 2.00 GHz versus 0.10 GHz for the Processor N250. The boost clock is 5.00 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. The TDP is 25 W versus 6 W. The socket is Intel BGA 2540 versus Intel BGA 1264. The architecture is Panther Lake versus Twin Lake. The process node is 3 nm versus 10 nm.

Cache specifications also differ. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The Processor N250 has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support is LPDDR5X for the Core Ultra X7 368H and DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 for the Processor N250. The memory bus is dual-channel versus single-channel. Memory bandwidth is 153.6 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. PCIe support is Gen 5 with 4 lanes versus Gen 3 with 9 lanes. Integrated graphics are Arc B390 versus UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a part number of SA4R7Q9EJ, and the Processor N250 has a part number of SRPNS. The Core Ultra X7 368H was released on 2026-01-04, and the Processor N250 was released on 2025-01-06.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and the Intel Processor N250 are not available in the recorded data. The database contains a full suite of benchmark scores for the Core Ultra X7 368H, but the Processor N250 has no recorded benchmark scores and no nearest rival data. As a result, the head-to-head comparison must rely on the Core Ultra X7 368H's absolute scores and its position relative to other processors in the database.

The Core Ultra X7 368H delivers strong multi-threaded performance across Cinebench tests. It scores 2844 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 401 points in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 11852 points in multi-core and 1673 points in single-core. In Cinebench R23, it scores 28221 points in multi-core and 3984 points in single-core. These multi-core scores reflect the advantage of 16 physical cores versus the 4 cores of the Processor N250, which would be expected to score far lower in the same tests.

PassMark results for the Core Ultra X7 368H show strong integer and floating-point throughput. It scores 88083 points in integer math, 105681 points in floating-point math, and 25669 points in extended instructions. Data compression scores 312927 points, and data encryption scores 25228 points. The processor finds prime numbers at a rate of 321 points, sorts random strings at 38093 points, and achieves 2857 points in physics tests. The PassMark multi-thread score is 32956, and the single-thread score is 4005.

The Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518 and sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are closely matched. The Intel Core 7 253PE has an average score of 40557, a delta of -0.1% relative to the Core Ultra X7 368H. The Intel Core 5 223PE has an average score of 40585, a delta of -0.2%. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H has an average score of 40431, a delta of 0.2%. The Intel Xeon 6507P has an average score of 40426, a delta of 0.2%. These results indicate that the Core Ultra X7 368H sits in a tightly contested performance band, essentially tied with its nearest competitors within a fraction of a percent.

The Processor N250, with no benchmark scores recorded, cannot be positioned in this comparison numerically. Its specification profile, particularly the 4-core configuration and 6 W TDP, places it in a different performance class entirely. The Core Ultra X7 368H, with a 4x core advantage, a higher boost clock, a larger cache pool, and substantially higher memory bandwidth, occupies a clearly higher tier of performance. The Processor N250's 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs also indicates a mid-pack position, whereas the Core Ultra X7 368H's 87th percentile ranking places it near the top of the database. The data confirms that these processors are not direct competitors; they serve different segments of the mobile market.