Intel Core Ultra X9 378H vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

Intel Core Ultra X9 378H vs Intel Processor 300

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is a mobile processor built for the Core Ultra Series 3, featuring 16 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Processor 300 is a desktop chip with 2 cores and 4 threads, running at a fixed 3.90 GHz with no boost clock listed. The database shows a stark performance divide: the Ultra X9 378H holds an 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Processor 300 sits at the 50th percentile. The Ultra X9 378H has an average benchmark score of 47468, while the Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, leaving direct comparisons to rely on architectural and specification differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has a full suite of benchmark results, while the Intel Processor 300 has no recorded scores in the database. This means the head-to-head comparison is one-sided, but the available numbers for the Ultra X9 378H can be weighed against the Processor 300's lack of measured performance. The Ultra X9 378H posts a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32553 and a single-core score of 4595. Its Cinebench R20 results are 13672 multicore and 1929 single-core, and its Cinebench R15 results are 3281 multicore and 462 single-core. These scores indicate a processor that handles both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads with a high degree of competence, but they cannot be directly applied to the Processor 300 without its own benchmark data.

PassMark results for the Ultra X9 378H further illustrate its strengths. The multithread score is 38298, the single-thread score is 4453, and the physics score is 3404. Integer math reaches 92603, floating point math reaches 114500, and extended instructions score 31315. Data compression scores 386591, data encryption scores 29840, and random string sorting scores 44648. Prime number finding is the outlier at 357, a low figure relative to the other PassMark subtests. The average benchmark score for the Ultra X9 378H is 47468, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Because the Processor 300 has no benchmark entries, the database shows zero wins for either side in the head-to-head section. The practical interpretation is that the Ultra X9 378H carries all measured performance data, while the Processor 300 must be evaluated on specifications alone. The nearest rivals for the Ultra X9 378H provide context for its standing: the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 averages 47527, which is 0.1% higher than the Ultra X9 378H. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T averages 47697, 0.5% higher. The Intel Core i7-13700KF averages 47330, 0.3% lower. The Intel Core i9-12900F averages 47176, 0.6% lower. This places the Ultra X9 378H in a tight cluster around the 47000 to 47700 average score range, with no rival more than 0.6% away.

The absence of Processor 300 benchmarks means the database cannot calculate a delta percentage for it. Every measured performance advantage goes to the Ultra X9 378H by default, but the Processor 300's lower core count and desktop orientation suggest it targets a different workload profile. The data confirms that the Ultra X9 378H is a high-scoring mobile part, while the Processor 300 remains unquantified in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins in every benchmark category that has recorded data. Its 16 cores and 16 threads give it a strong foundation for multithreaded tasks, as shown by the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32553 and the PassMark multithread score of 38298. The single-core performance is also solid, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4595 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4453. This combination means the Ultra X9 378H can handle both parallel workloads like rendering and compilation, and single-threaded workloads like legacy applications or lightly threaded games.

The PassMark subtest scores for the Ultra X9 378H reveal specific strengths. Floating point math at 114500 and integer math at 92603 indicate strong number-crunching capability. Data compression at 386591 is the highest PassMark subtest, suggesting efficient handling of compression algorithms. Data encryption at 29840 and extended instructions at 31315 are moderate figures, while random string sorting at 44648 shows solid memory and sorting performance. The physics score of 3404 is lower, and the prime number score of 357 is notably weak, which may indicate a specific limitation in that particular workload type.

The Intel Processor 300 has no benchmark scores, so its wins cannot be quantified from the database. Its specifications do suggest where it might fit: 2 cores and 4 threads, a base clock of 3.90 GHz, and 46 W TDP. The higher clock speed on a per-core basis could benefit lightly threaded tasks, but without benchmark data, this remains speculative. The Processor 300's desktop socket, Intel Socket 1700, and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory give it a different platform role, but the database records no measured wins for it. The Ultra X9 378H is the only processor in this comparison with recorded performance data, so it claims all benchmark-based wins.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H?

A: The average benchmark score is 47468, and the processor ranks in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the Intel Processor 300 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark results for the Intel Processor 300, and its average benchmark score is 0.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What are the clock speeds for each processor?

A: The Ultra X9 378H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no boost clock listed.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Intel Processor 300 has a TDP of 46 W, which is higher than the Ultra X9 378H's TDP of 25 W.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: Both processors are listed as active in the database. The Ultra X9 378H was released on 2026-04-03, and the Processor 300 was released on 2024-01-07.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X memory. The Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Ultra X9 378H runs at a base clock of 2.00 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Processor 300 runs at 3.90 GHz with no boost clock listed. TDP differs significantly: the Ultra X9 378H draws 25 W, while the Processor 300 draws 46 W. The Ultra X9 378H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, while the Processor 300 uses the Intel Socket 1700. The process node also differs, with the Ultra X9 378H built on 3 nm and the Processor 300 on 10 nm.

Cache configurations are markedly different. The Ultra X9 378H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Processor 300 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support diverges as well: the Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with no memory bandwidth listed. Both use dual-channel memory buses, and neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ substantially. The Ultra X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Processor 300 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Ultra X9 378H uses Arc B390, while the Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710. The market segments are different too, with the Ultra X9 378H aimed at mobile and the Processor 300 at desktop. The Processor 300 has a launch MSRP of $82 and a part number of SRN3J, while the Ultra X9 378H has no launch MSRP and an unknown part number. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The release dates are far apart. The Processor 300 was released on 2024-01-07, while the Ultra X9 378H was released on 2026-04-03. The Processor 300 has a die size of 163 mm², while the Ultra X9 378H has no die size listed. Neither processor has a listed transistor count. The Processor 300 is part of the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-S, while the Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename and is part of the Ultra X9 generation under Panther Lake-H. The Ultra X9 378H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, while the Processor 300 has no series listed.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two processors is substantial. The Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename and falls under the Panther Lake-H generation, built on a 3 nm process. The Processor 300 uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-S codename, built on a 10 nm process. The process node difference is a major factor in power efficiency and transistor density, though the database does not list transistor counts for either chip.

Core architecture differs significantly. The Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core. The Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads, with 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache is 18 MB on the Ultra X9 378H versus 6 MB on the Processor 300. These cache differences align with the core count disparity, giving the Ultra X9 378H a larger pool of fast memory for active data.

The integrated graphics differ in tier. The Ultra X9 378H ships with Arc B390, while the Processor 300 ships with UHD Graphics 710. The database does not provide benchmark scores for either integrated GPU, but the naming conventions suggest different performance classes. Memory support also reflects different platform generations: LPDDR5X on the Ultra X9 378H versus DDR4 and DDR5 on the Processor 300. The Ultra X9 378H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the Processor 300 has no bandwidth figure listed.

PCIe connectivity is another architectural divider. The Ultra X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), which is a limited number of lanes for a mobile part. The Processor 300 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), which is a typical desktop allocation. Both chips have a dual-channel memory bus and no ECC memory support. The Ultra X9 378H sits in the mobile market segment with a 25 W TDP, while the Processor 300 sits in the desktop segment with a 46 W TDP. The foundry for both is Intel, and both are active in production.

The Verdict

The data in the database points to a clear split by use case. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is the only processor here with recorded benchmarks, and those benchmarks are strong across the board. Its 89th percentile ranking, average benchmark score of 47468, and Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32553 make it a capable mobile processor for demanding workloads. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.6% of its average score, which shows it competes directly with established desktop and mobile parts like the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 and the Intel Core i7-13700KF.

The Intel Processor 300 has no benchmark data, so its performance cannot be assessed from the database. Its specifications show a low-core-count desktop chip with a high base clock of 3.90 GHz, 46 W TDP, and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory. It launched at an MSRP of $82 and uses the Intel Socket 1700, which places it in the entry-level desktop segment. The 2 cores and 4 threads suggest it targets basic computing tasks, but no recorded scores exist to confirm this.

The choice between these two processors depends on the platform. The Ultra X9 378H is a mobile part with 16 cores, a 5.00 GHz boost clock, and 18 MB of L3 cache, suited for laptops and compact systems where the 25 W TDP fits. The Processor 300 is a desktop part with 2 cores, a 3.90 GHz fixed clock, and 6 MB of L3 cache, suited for desktop builds on Socket 1700. The Ultra X9 378H has a far higher core count, larger cache, and a more advanced 3 nm process, while the Processor 300 offers a higher base clock and more PCIe lanes.

For users who need measured performance, the Ultra X9 378H is the only option with data in the database. Its Cinebench and PassMark scores indicate strong multithreaded and single-threaded capability, and its 89th percentile ranking confirms its position among all CPUs. For users who need a desktop processor with a simple dual-core design and DDR4 or DDR5 support, the Processor 300 is the only option, but its performance remains unquantified. The database records no benchmark wins for either processor in a direct head-to-head, so the verdict rests on the available data: the Ultra X9 378H delivers all measured performance, while the Processor 300 offers a low-power desktop alternative without recorded scores.