Core Ultra 7 155H vs Core Ultra X9 388H
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core Ultra 7 155H | Core Ultra X9 388H | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 99 | 132 | -25.0% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 957 | 1,343 | -28.7% |
| Cores | 16 (6P+10E) | 16 (4P+12E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 20 | 15 | — |
| PassMark CPU Mark | 24,539 | 36,898 | -33.5% |
- Core Ultra 7 155H is slower than Core Ultra X9 388H by 25.0% in single-core and slower by 28.7% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 20W base TDP).
Verdict: Core Ultra 7 155H or Core Ultra X9 388H?
Core Ultra 7 155H advantages
- No decisive advantage on the tracked metrics.
Core Ultra X9 388H advantages
- Single-core speed (+25%)
- Multi-core speed (+29%)
- Power efficiency (+25%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core Ultra X9 388H if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
Core Ultra 7 155H vs Core Ultra X9 388H: which should you choose?
Core Ultra 7 155H — 16-core Intel processor (6P+10E) scoring 99 single-core and 957 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 20 W TDP.
Core Ultra X9 388H — 16-core Intel processor (4P+12E) scoring 132 single-core and 1343 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 15 W TDP.
Core Ultra 7 155H vs Core Ultra X9 388H: Core Ultra X9 388H leads in multi-core performance. Core Ultra 7 155H is slower than Core Ultra X9 388H by 25.0% in single-core and slower by 28.7% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 20W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The Core Ultra X9 388H leads there with a single-core score of 132 versus 99, so it is the marginally better pick for high-refresh gaming — though at typical resolutions the GPU usually decides frame rates.
Content creation and multitasking
For rendering, compilation, video export and other all-core workloads, the Core Ultra X9 388H is stronger, posting 1,343 multi-core against 957 in Cinebench 2024. Its 16 cores (4 performance + 12 efficiency) give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The Core Ultra X9 388H is the more efficient chip at 15 W versus 20 W, which means less heat, quieter cooling and lower running costs under sustained load.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the processor comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Core Ultra 7 155H better than the Core Ultra X9 388H?
Core Ultra X9 388H is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. Core Ultra 7 155H is slower than Core Ultra X9 388H by 25.0% in single-core and slower by 28.7% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core Ultra 7 155H and the Core Ultra X9 388H?
Core Ultra 7 155H is slower than Core Ultra X9 388H by 25.0% in single-core and slower by 28.7% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 20W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the Core Ultra X9 388H if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
Methodology
Processors are compared on Cinebench 2024 single-core and multi-core scores from published leaderboard results, alongside core configuration (performance + efficiency cores), base TDP, L3 cache, PassMark CPU Mark, 1080p gaming scores and street pricing where measured. Cinebench reflects rendering-style workloads; gaming performance depends heavily on the GPU and the specific title, so treat single-core standing as directional. Figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.