Leaked Lunar Lake's Ultra 7 chip debuts in Geekbench database — impressive performance from low-power chips

Intel Lunar Lake
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Two new Intel Lunar Lake results have cropped up on the Geekbench browser (as spotted by @BenchLeaks on X), featuring the upcoming Core Ultra 7 268V with four non-Hyper-Threading P-cores and four E-cores. If we take these results at face value, the new CPU's performance in Geekbench is a mixed bag. It boasts superior single-core performance but not enough multi-threaded juice to defeat Intel's Meteor Lake Core Ultra 7 parts. That's a solid result, though, as Lunar Lake is designed for lower-TDP thin-and-lights and compact notebooks than the higher-tier Meteor Lake processors.

Two listings featuring the Core Ultra 7 268V have appeared on Geekbench; the first reveals a score of 2,713 points and 10,036 points for the Lunar Lake chip in the single and multi-core benchmarks. The other shows a slightly better single core but a slightly inferior multi-threaded score of 2,739 and 9,907 points, respectively. 

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • KnightShadey
    abufrejoval said:
    Why do you judge them impressive?

    Agreed, even the Zen5 results, were just.... "yep seems about right" .. and the march goes on.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    abufrejoval said:
    Why do you judge them impressive?

    They seem to be really along the same lines as the competition on single, less impressive on multi, but that's because they are designed for the ultra low power classs.
    Disagree completely on the multithreaded not being impressive as it's much more impressive than single threaded. We're talking 4P/4E/8T, E-cores that don't have L3 access, P-cores that don't have HT about matching the performance of a 13400 (ADL specs even in the RPL version) at 6P/4E/16T. This configuration matching a 65W SKU in a package designed to not go past 30W with a steady of 17W (assuming the leaks are accurate) is extremely impressive.
    Reply
  • JRStern
    I totally welcome good performance on a low-power chips.
    Not even thin-and-light, I want a fanless workstation.
    Real performance now I worry about only in the cloud on much bigger machines than I'm likely to run IRL.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    abufrejoval said:
    Why do you judge them impressive?
    Just playing devils advocate here, but if we are talking about an 8 core part (268V is supposed to be 4 P/4 E) vs a 16 core part of similar product level coming in semi close in multi score, that's at least notable. Not Earth shattering, but interesting.
    Reply
  • JTWrenn
    abufrejoval said:
    Why do you judge them impressive?

    They seem to be really along the same lines as the competition on single, less impressive on multi, but that's because they are designed for the ultra low power classs.
    The article explains why they call them impressive in the last paragraph.

    "so it still impresses in the multi-threaded tests if you take into account the comparative thread counts and target TDPs (reported default of 17W for most models, with 30W peak). In contrast, Meteor Lake processors are designed to scale to higher TDPs. Intel has yet to introduce its successor for the higher-powered 45W/115W Meteor Lake chips."
    Reply
  • KnightShadey
    OK, so I guess potato / tomato regarding 'impressive'.

    But even on multi-threaded performance, is it "impressive" or "not" to y'all?
    Article says one thing, and most here are arguing the opposite.

    Quick look on NBC multi- core performance of 9,972 is way below an equally low TDP QualcommX1P-64 which scores 13,278 running 10 cores @ 3.4Ghz max, vs the LNL 4/4 @ 3.9/4.7/49Ghz. And Single & multi-core performance is right near the similar TDP 15W Ryzen 8840U's score for something with similar TDP but far more threads. Both below the Z1 extreme in MC.


    It's definitely 'good' for efficiency & power from 4+4 cores, but is it 'impressive' , or.... what you would expect from a node update, freq/memory bump, and cutting down extra cores/multi-threaded performance to focus on TDP and single threaded performance ala Apple/Qc?

    All seems pretty inline to me, and it's only impressive versus particularly bad previous generation efficiency. However, whether TDP or cores, there's existing product all around it, above and below and beside. 🤔

    By impressive I was expecting Apple intel -> M1 change in single core - efficiency. Especially after all the wild early claims from Qualcomm, AMD, and intel. These seem like more down to earth improvements.

    BTW, I wonder about that 155H result in the article, seems like a throttled version, 155U or 165 U would've been a better choice, especially if TDP is the selling point of 'impressive' in this case. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    Beats the heck out my AMD 4700U (8C/8T) Lenovo laptop

    1500 - Single-Core Score
    5051 - Multi-Core Score


    https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/6685914
    Reply
  • Pierce2623
    thestryker said:
    Disagree completely on the multithreaded not being impressive as it's much more impressive than single threaded. We're talking 4P/4E/8T, E-cores that don't have L3 access, P-cores that don't have HT about matching the performance of a 13400 (ADL specs even in the RPL version) at 6P/4E/16T. This configuration matching a 65W SKU in a package designed to not go past 30W with a steady of 17W (assuming the leaks are accurate) is extremely impressive.
    I can’t really speak to the 13400 but the 13600k doubles those multithreaded scores so I’m pretty sure the 13400 should be higher than you claim.
    Reply
  • cknobman
    Just my personal opinion here but the era of x86 for mobile computer is darn near over.

    I wouldnt invest in anything x86 for a personal mobile computer.
    Heck I'm counting the months until even mobile gaming machines, like my Steam Deck, ditch the x86 processors and move over to Arm chips.
    Reply
  • KnightShadey
    cknobman said:
    Just my personal opinion here but the era of x86 for mobile computer is darn near over.

    Even if true, the existing install base is enough to keep it going for at least a decade.

    cknobman said:
    I wouldnt invest in anything x86 for a personal mobile computer.

    Until the alternatives reach the power and options of the X86 ecosystem, they aren't worth 'investing in' either, especially with all the near-term shortcomings tradeoffs, they are just another valid alternative, as is RISC-V for some too.

    However for the vast majority, they don't currently know or care that it is x86, and they likely will go on being oblivious when they change to the alternatives, as long as it works, meets their needs, is easy to use, and is at the price they like for the features they get.

    We're the minority that know the difference, and if the performance vs price is compelling enough most of us will go with the one that gets it done too.... unless they are RISC averse. 😜
    Reply