Intel Core 3 100HL vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database separates these two Intel processors clearly. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins 16 of 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core 3 100HL taking only a single victory. The Core Ultra X7 358H sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 40967, while the Core 3 100HL sits at the 76th percentile with an average score of 23545. That difference of roughly 17422 points places the two parts in entirely different performance classes.

The Core 3 100HL is a desktop-oriented processor built for systems where the other option is simply not available. Its single win in the Cinebench R23 single-core test, where it scores 2110 against 2080 for the Core Ultra X7 358H, is a narrow 1.4% margin. The data shows the Core 3 100HL is the appropriate choice for an Intel Socket 1700 desktop platform, or for workloads that depend on that specific single-core result. The Core Ultra X7 358H is the appropriate choice for nearly everything else, especially mobile systems, given its BGA 2540 socket and 25 watt thermal design power.

The Core Ultra X7 358H also compares favorably against its nearest rivals in the database. It sits within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, and it leads the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G by 0.6%. The Core 3 100HL, by contrast, trades results within 1.2% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H and the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V. Both parts are competitive within their respective peer groups, but the peer group for the Core Ultra X7 358H is simply faster.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X7 358H dominates across every multi-threaded workload in the database. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3027 against 1506, a 50.2% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 12011 against 6278, a 47.7% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 18747 against 14948, a 20.3% advantage. The PassMark multi-thread test shows 33802 against 17586, a 48% advantage. These results indicate the Core Ultra X7 358H handles heavily parallel workloads with substantially more headroom.

The PassMark physics test shows the largest gap in the database. The Core Ultra X7 358H scores 3021 against 928 for the Core 3 100HL, a 69.3% advantage. The prime number test follows closely with 337 against 48, an 85.8% advantage, the largest percentage difference in the entire head-to-head set. Floating point math shows 103842 against 42108, a 59.4% advantage. Data encryption shows 26046 against 11964, a 54.1% advantage. Extended instructions show 27274 against 12463, a 54.3% advantage.

The Core 3 100HL wins exactly one test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2110 against 2080 for the Core Ultra X7 358H, a 1.4% margin. This is the only test where the desktop part leads. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra X7 358H leads 301.5 against 212, a 29.7% margin. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core Ultra X7 358H leads 1695 against 886, a 47.7% margin. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4124 against 3735, a 9.4% margin in favor of the Core Ultra X7 358H.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different process nodes. The Core 3 100HL uses Raptor Lake architecture on the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename on the Panther Lake-H generation, built on a 3 nm process, also at Intel's foundry. The process node difference of 7 nm explains part of the efficiency gap, though not all of it.

The core configurations differ substantially. The Core 3 100HL has 8 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, indicating a design without simultaneous multithreading on its cores. Despite having the same thread count as the Core 3 100HL in the opposite direction, the Core Ultra X7 358H more than doubles the multi-core performance in most tests. The base clock of the Core 3 100HL is 2.10 GHz with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The higher boost clock on the Core Ultra X7 358H contributes to its single-thread results, but the core count difference drives the multi-core results.

Cache hierarchies differ as well. The Core 3 100HL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core cache and the larger shared L3 cache give the Core Ultra X7 358H more data capacity for both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Core 3 100HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X memory in a dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The recorded bandwidth figure for the Core Ultra X7 358H indicates a high-bandwidth mobile memory design, while the Core 3 100HL's support for two memory standards gives it platform flexibility on Socket 1700 motherboards.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 100HL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra X7 358H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 100HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units, while the Core Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390 graphics. The Core Ultra X7 358H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540, while the Core 3 100HL is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700. Both processors are active in production, and both have locked multipliers. The Core 3 100HL was released in 2024, while the Core Ultra X7 358H has a release date of 2026. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a recorded part number of SA4RAQ9ET.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 100HL has 8 cores and 12 threads. The Core Ultra X7 358H has twice the core count.

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H leads in most single-threaded tests. It scores 301.5 against 212 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 1695 against 886 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 4124 against 3735 in PassMark single-thread. The Intel Core 3 100HL wins only in Cinebench R23 single-core with 2110 against 2080.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X memory in dual-channel mode with a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel Core 3 100HL has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra X7 358H also has a lower base clock at 1.90 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.

Q: What sockets do these processors use?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile socket. This reflects their respective desktop and mobile market segments.

Q: How does the Core Ultra X7 358H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has an average benchmark score of 40967. It trails the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 by 0.6%, trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H by 0.6%, leads the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G by 0.6%, and trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H by 0.7%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest victory for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H comes in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra X7 358H scores 337 against 48 for the Core 3 100HL, a difference of 85.8%. This test measures integer-heavy iterative computation, and the 16-core design of the Core Ultra X7 358H provides a massive advantage over the 8-core Core 3 100HL.

The PassMark physics test shows the second-largest gap. The Core Ultra X7 358H scores 3021 against 928, a 69.3% advantage. Physics workloads often scale well with core count and memory bandwidth, and the Core Ultra X7 358H's 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth support this result.

The floating point math test shows 103842 for the Core Ultra X7 358H against 42108 for the Core 3 100HL, a 59.4% advantage. The extended instructions test shows 27274 against 12463, a 54.3% advantage. The data encryption test shows 26046 against 11964, a 54.1% advantage. These three PassMark tests all favor the Core Ultra X7 358H by more than half, indicating strong SIMD and cryptographic throughput from the newer Panther Lake architecture.

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows 3027 against 1506, a 50.2% advantage. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows 12011 against 6278, a 47.7% advantage. The PassMark multi-thread test shows 33802 against 17586, a 48% advantage. The random string sorting test shows 40357 against 23223, a 42.5% advantage. The data compression test shows 332508 against 202225, a 39.2% advantage. The integer math test shows 83147 against 56308, a 32.3% advantage.

The single-threaded tests show a narrower but still consistent lead for the Core Ultra X7 358H. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4124 against 3735, a 9.4% advantage. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows 301.5 against 212, a 29.7% advantage. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows 1695 against 886, a 47.7% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core test is the sole exception, where the Core 3 100HL scores 2110 against 2080, a 1.4% advantage.

The overall win tally in the database is 16 wins for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H and 1 win for the Intel Core 3 100HL. The average benchmark score difference of 40967 versus 23545 confirms the positional gap. The Core 3 100HL remains viable for Socket 1700 desktop builds and for the single Cinebench R23 single-core workload where it holds a narrow lead. The Core Ultra X7 358H delivers the stronger result across virtually every recorded workload category, with particularly large margins in physics, prime number computation, and encryption.