Intel Core Ultra X9 378H vs Intel Processor U300L Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra X9 378H and the Intel Processor U300L occupy very different tiers, and the recorded benchmark data reflects that separation clearly. The X9 378H has an extensive suite of 17 benchmark results, while the U300L has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence of data for the U300L makes a direct score-by-score comparison impossible, but the X9 378H’s performance profile can still be interpreted against its nearest rivals.

The X9 378H delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,553, which places it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs tested. Its single-core result in the same test is 4,595. The Cinebench R20 run shows 13,672 multi-core and 1,929 single-core, while Cinebench R15 records 3,281 multi-core and 462 single-core. In PassMark tests, the X9 378H reaches 38,298 in multithread performance and 4,453 in single-thread performance. The data compression score is 386,591, and data encryption reaches 29,840. Extended instructions score 31,315, floating point math hits 114,500, and integer math reaches 92,603. Prime number finding scores 357, physics processing scores 3,404, and random string sorting scores 44,648.

The average benchmark score for the X9 378H is 47,468. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 with an average score of 47,527, which is 0.1% higher. The Intel Core i7-13700KF scores 47,330, which is 0.3% lower than the X9 378H. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T scores 47,697, putting it 0.5% higher. The Intel Core i9-12900F scores 47,176, which is 0.6% lower. These margins are all within one percentage point, indicating that the X9 378H sits in a tightly contested performance band despite its high percentile ranking.

Without any benchmark entries for the U300L, the data cannot confirm specific performance gaps between the two processors. The U300L carries a 50th percentile ranking in the database, which places it in the middle of all CPUs, but the lack of measured scores means no exact deltas can be calculated. What the data does show is that the X9 378H is positioned among high-end desktop and mobile processors, while the U300L is positioned as a mainstream part.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Processor U300L have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The U300L has an empty benchmarks array, meaning no recorded scores exist for any test. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed.

Q: How does the Core Ultra X9 378H compare to its closest rivals?

A: The X9 378H has an average benchmark score of 47,468. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 scores 47,527 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T scores 47,697 (0.5% higher), the Intel Core i7-13700KF scores 47,330 (0.3% lower), and the Intel Core i9-12900F scores 47,176 (0.6% lower).

Q: What is the highest recorded benchmark score for the X9 378H?

A: The highest single test score is 386,591 in PassMark data compression. The next highest is 114,500 in floating point math, followed by 92,603 in integer math.

Q: What is the X9 378H’s percentile ranking?

A: The X9 378H ranks in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The U300L ranks in the 50th percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The X9 378H has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the U300L has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both list ECC memory support as false.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The X9 378H is built on the Panther Lake codename and belongs to the Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) generation. Its process node is 3 nm, fabricated by Intel. The U300L is based on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and uses a 10 nm process node, also from Intel.

Core counts differ substantially. The X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads, indicating no hyperthreading on any core. The U300L has 5 cores and 6 threads, meaning one core supports additional threads. The base clock for the X9 378H is 2.00 GHz, compared to 1.20 GHz for the U300L. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz and 4.40 GHz respectively.

Cache hierarchies are distinct. The X9 378H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The U300L has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The X9 378H’s larger cache footprint aligns with its higher core count and performance tier.

Memory support differs. The X9 378H supports LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The U300L supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, but no bandwidth figure is recorded in the database.

PCI Express connectivity also differs. The X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the U300L provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are different as well: the X9 378H uses Arc B390, while the U300L uses UHD Graphics 48EU.

The sockets are not the same. The X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540, while the U300L uses Intel Socket 1700. Both are mobile market segment parts, and both are in active production status. The X9 378H has a locked multiplier, as does the U300L.

The release dates are separated by nearly two years. The X9 378H was released on 2026-04-03, while the U300L was released on 2024-04-07. The U300L has a launch MSRP of $107, while the X9 378H has no launch MSRP recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to the Core Ultra X9 378H as the higher-performance processor. Its 16 cores, 16 threads, 5.00 GHz boost clock, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache provide a structural advantage over the U300L’s 5 cores, 6 threads, 4.40 GHz boost clock, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The X9 378H also uses a 3 nm process compared to the U300L’s 10 nm process, which suggests a more advanced manufacturing technology.

The X9 378H’s 89th percentile ranking places it among high-performing CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 47,468 puts it within one percentage point of several established desktop processors. The U300L’s 50th percentile ranking indicates a mid-pack position, though the absence of benchmark scores prevents a precise comparison. The U300L does have a lower TDP of 15 watts compared to the X9 378H’s 25 watts, which could indicate lower power draw, but no wattage figures beyond these TDP values are available.

For workloads that require many cores, high cache capacity, and fast memory bandwidth, the X9 378H is the clear choice from the data. For tasks where lower power consumption and a simpler, smaller core configuration are priorities, the U300L may be adequate, but the recorded data does not provide performance evidence to support that claim. The U300L’s support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory offers flexibility in system design that the X9 378H’s LPDDR5X-only support does not.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core count: the X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the U300L has 5 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz versus 1.20 GHz. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. TDP values are 25 watts versus 15 watts.

The sockets differ: Intel BGA 2540 for the X9 378H, Intel Socket 1700 for the U300L. The X9 378H uses a 3 nm process node, while the U300L uses 10 nm. The codenames differ (Panther Lake versus Raptor Lake-PS), as do the generations (Ultra X9 Panther Lake-H versus Intel Processor Raptor Lake).

Cache configurations are different at every level. L1 is 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core. L2 is 2.5 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core. L3 is 18 MB shared versus 8 MB shared.

Memory support differs: LPDDR5X for the X9 378H, DDR4 and DDR5 for the U300L. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the X9 378H at 153.6 GB/s. PCIe generation and lane counts differ: Gen 5 with 4 lanes versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: Arc B390 versus UHD Graphics 48EU.

Release dates differ: 2026-04-03 for the X9 378H, 2024-04-07 for the U300L. The U300L has a launch MSRP of $107, while the X9 378H has none recorded. Both have locked multipliers, both are mobile market segments, both are active production status, and both lack ECC memory support.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X9 378H wins in scenarios that demand high core counts and large cache. Its 16 cores and 16 threads are suited to multi-threaded workloads such as video rendering, compilation, and scientific computing. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache supports data-heavy tasks that benefit from large on-chip storage. The 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth on LPDDR5X provides a wide data path for memory-intensive applications. The 5.00 GHz boost clock helps single-threaded responsiveness, and the 89th percentile ranking indicates strong overall performance in the database.

The Intel Processor U300L wins in scenarios where lower power consumption is a priority. Its 15 watt TDP is lower than the X9 378H’s 25 watts, which could translate to longer battery life in mobile devices or simpler cooling solutions. The support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory gives system designers more options for memory selection. The Gen 4 PCIe with 8 lanes offers more lanes than the X9 378H’s Gen 5 with 4 lanes, which could be useful for systems needing multiple PCIe devices. The 50th percentile ranking places it in the middle of all CPUs, which is appropriate for general-purpose tasks like office productivity, web browsing, and light media consumption.

The U300L’s 5 cores and 6 threads with a 4.40 GHz boost clock can handle everyday workloads, but the data does not provide benchmark evidence to quantify those capabilities. The X9 378H, by contrast, has a full set of measured scores that confirm its high-end positioning. For users who need maximum multi-threaded performance, the X9 378H is the documented choice. For those who prioritize power efficiency and memory flexibility, the U300L has structural advantages, though its performance remains unmeasured in the database.