Intel Core Ultra X9 388H vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data available for direct comparison covers four Cinebench tests, and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins all of them by substantial margins. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Ultra X9 388H scores 18,911 against the Intel Processor N150's 2,590.5, a delta of 630%. This is the single biggest performance separation in the recorded data, and it reflects the fundamental difference in multi-threaded workload capacity between the two parts.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra X9 388H posts 2,955 points versus 422.5 for the N150, a 599.4% advantage. The multicore deltas are consistent across both Cinebench versions, indicating that the scaling advantage holds regardless of the test generation. The single-core results tell a similar story, though with smaller deltas. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra X9 388H scores 2,200.5 against 935, a 135.3% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the gap is 102.1%, with the Ultra X9 388H at 309.5 and the N150 at 153.15.

The data shows that the Ultra X9 388H is not merely faster in aggregate; it is faster by a factor that exceeds what core count alone would suggest. The N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, a 4x core advantage. Yet the multicore deltas reach 630%, meaning the per-core performance of the Ultra X9 388H is also significantly higher, not just the core count.

The average benchmark score in the database reinforces this separation. The Ultra X9 388H sits at an average of 44,466, while the N150 averages 1,025. The percentile ranking places the Ultra X9 388H in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the N150 sits in the 28th percentile. These are not close parts by any measured metric.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins every benchmark in the head-to-head dataset. That includes both multicore tests and both single-core tests. The N150 has no recorded wins in any direct comparison. The database shows a wins tally of 4 for the Ultra X9 388H and 0 for the N150.

Beyond the direct head-to-head, the Ultra X9 388H has a broader benchmark profile that includes PassMark tests not recorded for the N150. The database lists PassMark results for the Ultra X9 388H in data compression (361,763), data encryption (28,490), extended instructions (29,943), prime number finding (358), floating point math (112,550), integer math (90,882), multithread (36,811), physics (3,226), random string sorting (44,010), and single-thread (4,280). These scores indicate strong performance across encryption, compression, and math-heavy workloads. The N150 has no PassMark entries in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for those tests.

For use-case analysis, the data supports the Ultra X9 388H for any workload that benefits from high multicore throughput, such as rendering, compilation, or simulation. The 630% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore is the clearest signal. The single-core lead of 135.3% also makes the Ultra X9 388H the stronger choice for lightly threaded tasks like general desktop responsiveness or legacy single-threaded applications. The N150, with its 6 W TDP and modest scores, is positioned for low-power scenarios where absolute performance is secondary to energy consumption.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and process nodes. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation, built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Processor N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture, listed under the Alder Lake-N generation, built on a 10 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel.

The core configurations differ sharply. The Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither processor supports Hyper-Threading based on the thread counts matching core counts. The cache hierarchy also differs. The Ultra X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The N150 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3.

The memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 4x difference in memory bandwidth, which aligns with the overall performance gap.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Ultra X9 388H uses Arc B390 graphics, while the N150 uses UHD Graphics 730. The PCIe support differs as well: the Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the N150 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra X9 388H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, and the N150 uses Intel BGA 1264.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The core and thread counts differ by a factor of 4: 16 cores and 16 threads for the Ultra X9 388H versus 4 cores and 4 threads for the N150. The base clock of the Ultra X9 388H is 2.10 GHz, while the N150 has a recorded base clock of 0.10 GHz. The boost clock is 5.10 GHz for the Ultra X9 388H and 3.60 GHz for the N150.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Ultra X9 388H has a TDP of 25 W, while the N150 has a TDP of 6 W. This puts the N150 in a much lower power envelope, which is relevant for fanless or passively cooled designs. The Ultra X9 388H requires more robust cooling but delivers far higher performance.

The process node differs: 3 nm for the Ultra X9 388H versus 10 nm for the N150. The L3 cache is 18 MB shared on the Ultra X9 388H versus 6 MB shared on the N150. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the Ultra X9 388H versus 2 MB shared on the N150. L1 cache is 192 KB per core versus 96 KB per core.

Memory support differs in both type and channel configuration. The Ultra X9 388H supports only LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 on a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. Both have locked multipliers. The release dates differ: the Ultra X9 388H released on 2026-01-04, and the N150 released on 2024-11-19. The part numbers are SA4QWQ9EK for the Ultra X9 388H and SRPNR for the N150.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How large is the multicore performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra X9 388H scores 18,911 versus 2,590.5 for the N150, a 630% delta. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra X9 388H scores 2,955 versus 422.5, a 599.4% delta.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Ultra X9 388H has a TDP of 25 W. The N150 has a TDP of 6 W.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Ultra X9 388H uses Arc B390 graphics. The N150 uses UHD Graphics 730.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra X9 388H has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The N150 has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the decision straightforward. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H outperforms the Intel Processor N150 in every benchmark where both have recorded scores. The multicore deltas are extreme, reaching 630% in Cinebench R23 and 599.4% in Cinebench R15. The single-core deltas are also large, at 135.3% and 102.1% respectively. The average benchmark scores place the Ultra X9 388H in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the N150 sits in the 28th percentile.

The architectural differences explain the performance gap. The Ultra X9 388H uses a 3 nm process, has 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel LPDDR5X memory with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, and a 25 W TDP. The N150 uses a 10 nm process, has 4 cores, 6 MB of L3 cache, single-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and a 6 W TDP. Every major specification favors the Ultra X9 388H.

The N150 is not without a place in the data. Its 6 W TDP and support for DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 make it suitable for low-power mobile systems. Its nearest rivals in the database include older desktop and mobile parts like the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and the Intel Core i7-5650U, with average scores within 0.2% of its own. It is a modest performer in a low-power niche.

The Ultra X9 388H, by contrast, sits alongside AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, Intel Core i9-13950HX, AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, and Intel Core i5-13600 in its nearest rival list, with deltas of -0.2% to 0.5%. That places it in a completely different performance class. For anyone choosing between these two processors based on the database measurements, the Ultra X9 388H is the clear choice for performance. The N150 only makes sense when the 6 W power envelope is the primary constraint.