Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H

The benchmark database places these two mobile processors in different performance classes. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins every single recorded head-to-head test, 17 out of 17, with no victories for the Intel Core 5 210H. The Core Ultra X7 358H holds an 87th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Core 5 210H sits at the 77th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra X7 358H is 40,967, compared to 24,872 for the Core 5 210H, a difference of roughly 65%. The data indicates a clear hierarchy: the Core Ultra X7 358H is the stronger processor across all measured workloads, while the Core 5 210H remains a capable mid-range option for less demanding tasks.

The Verdict

Based strictly on recorded measurements, the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the superior processor for users who need maximum multi-threaded performance, heavy compute workloads, or faster single-core responsiveness. Its average benchmark score of 40,967 places it well above the Core 5 210H's 24,872. The Core Ultra X7 358H also outperforms its own nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (delta of -0.6%) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (delta of -0.6%), while the Core 5 210H trades nearly evenly with its competition, such as the Intel Core i7-13620H (delta of -0.2%) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (delta of 0.2%). For users prioritizing raw compute, the Core Ultra X7 358H is the clear choice from this dataset.

The Intel Core 5 210H, however, has its own place. It draws a 45W TDP compared to the Core Ultra X7 358H's 25W TDP, yet it still delivers substantially lower scores. The Core 5 210H is a Raptor Lake refresh part, built on a 10nm process, and it targets mainstream mobile systems. Its benchmark results, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11,830, are respectable for everyday productivity, but they fall far short of the Core Ultra X7 358H's 18,747 in the same test. The verdict is simple: the Core Ultra X7 358H wins on performance across the board, while the Core 5 210H suits systems where the older architecture and higher power draw are acceptable trade-offs for a lower-tier price point, though pricing data is not available for the Core Ultra X7 358H.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design generations. The Intel Core 5 210H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, and belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. It is built on Intel's 10nm process node. The Core Ultra X7 358H, in contrast, uses the Panther Lake codename with the Panther Lake-H generation, and it is fabricated on a 3nm process node. This process difference is significant: the 3nm node offers higher transistor density and efficiency, which partially explains the Core Ultra X7 358H's superior performance despite a lower 25W TDP.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid layout with performance and efficiency cores. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading, but the raw core count doubles the Core 5 210H's physical cores. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 210H has 80KB of L1 cache per core, 2MB of L2 cache per core, and 12MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 192KB of L1 per core, 3MB of L2 per core, and 18MB of shared L3 cache. Every level of cache is larger on the Core Ultra X7 358H, which contributes to its higher single-thread scores.

Memory support is another major split. The Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the Core Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core Ultra X7 358H's integrated graphics are the Arc B390, whereas the Core 5 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 5 210H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), and the Core Ultra X7 358H offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are different as well, Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 5 210H and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra X7 358H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 3,027 against the Core 5 210H's 1,757, a delta of -42% from the Core 5 210H's perspective. The single-core R15 test shows 301.5 versus 247, a smaller but still decisive -18.1% delta. Cinebench R20 amplifies the gap: multi-core results are 12,011 versus 6,504, a -45.8% delta, and single-core results are 1,695 versus 918, also a -45.8% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 18,747 versus 11,830, a -36.9% delta, while single-core shows 2,080 versus 1,771, a -14.9% delta.

PassMark tests reinforce the pattern. The largest relative gap appears in the find prime numbers test: the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 337, while the Core 5 210H scores just 53, a -84.3% delta. This indicates a massive advantage in integer-heavy, latency-sensitive workloads. Floating point math also favors the Core Ultra X7 358H heavily: 103,842 versus 45,057, a -56.6% delta. Data encryption shows 26,046 versus 12,187, a -53.2% delta, and extended instructions show 27,274 versus 13,370, a -51% delta. Physics simulation results are 3,021 versus 1,040, a -65.6% delta, and multithread performance is 33,802 versus 18,252, a -46% delta.

The smallest gaps are in single-threaded tests. PassMark single thread shows 4,124 versus 3,539, a -14.2% delta, which matches the Cinebench R23 single-core delta of -14.9%. Integer math shows 83,147 versus 61,503, a -26% delta, and random string sorting shows 40,357 versus 23,451, a -41.9% delta. Data compression shows 332,508 versus 217,805, a -34.5% delta. In every category, the Core Ultra X7 358H leads, with the narrowest margins in single-core tests and the widest margins in specialized compute tests like prime number finding and physics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across every major specification field. The Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz for the Core 5 210H and 1.90 GHz for the Core Ultra X7 358H, but boost clocks are identical at 4.80 GHz for both. TDP is a notable difference: the Core 5 210H draws 45W, while the Core Ultra X7 358H draws 25W, despite the latter having double the cores. The socket changes from Intel BGA 1744 to Intel BGA 2540, and the process node drops from 10nm to 3nm.

Cache sizes are uniformly larger on the Core Ultra X7 358H: L1 goes from 80KB per core to 192KB per core, L2 from 2MB per core to 3MB per core, and L3 from 12MB shared to 18MB shared. Memory support shifts from DDR4 and DDR5 to LPDDR5X only, with a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s for the Core Ultra X7 358H. PCIe lanes drop from 8 to 4, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics change from Iris Xe Graphics 48EU to Arc B390. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 210H is $342, while the Core Ultra X7 358H has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Release dates differ as well, with the Core 5 210H released on 2024-12-17 and the Core Ultra X7 358H on 2026-01-04. Part numbers are SRQ6RQ5MN for the Core 5 210H and SA4RAQ9ET for the Core Ultra X7 358H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads. The Core Ultra X7 358H doubles the physical core count but does not use multithreading.

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra X7 358H in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 18,747 versus 11,830 for the Core 5 210H, a delta of -36.9%. In PassMark multithread, the scores are 33,802 versus 18,252, a -46% delta.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H has a TDP of 45W, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a TDP of 25W. The Core Ultra X7 358H delivers higher performance with lower power draw.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 5 210H uses Intel BGA 1744, and the Core Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H leads in all single-core tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,080 versus 1,771, a -14.9% delta, and PassMark single thread shows 4,124 versus 3,539, a -14.2% delta.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The Core Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X in dual-channel mode, with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins in every recorded benchmark category, so the analysis of "wins" is about the magnitude and nature of its dominance. Its largest relative advantages appear in integer-heavy and specialized tasks. The prime number finding test shows a -84.3% delta, meaning the Core Ultra X7 358H is over six times faster in that specific workload. Physics simulation shows a -65.6% delta, and floating point math shows a -56.6% delta. These results indicate the Core Ultra X7 358H is particularly strong in scientific computing, data analysis, and simulation workloads. Its 16 cores and larger 18MB L3 cache provide the raw throughput for these tasks. Data encryption and extended instructions also show deltas above -50%, suggesting advantages in security-related and instruction-intensive applications.

The Intel Core 5 210H has no benchmark wins in this dataset, but its profile suits different use cases based on its specifications. It has a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, which could offer snappier responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks at lower frequencies, though its boost clock matches the Core Ultra X7 358H at 4.80 GHz. Its 45W TDP suggests it is designed for larger, thicker laptops with more cooling headroom, not ultra-portable systems. The support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory gives system designers flexibility, and the 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes allow for more direct CPU-connected storage or expansion devices compared to the Core Ultra X7 358H's 4 lanes. The Core 5 210H also has a recorded launch MSRP of $342, making it a defined mid-range option, while the Core Ultra X7 358H lacks a listed MSRP.

The data does not show a single workload where the Core 5 210H outperforms the Core Ultra X7 358H. Instead, the Core 5 210H's role is defined by its compatibility and configuration. It uses the older Intel BGA 1744 socket, which may be available in existing laptop designs, and its Raptor Lake refresh generation is a mature platform. The Core Ultra X7 358H, by contrast, is a newer Panther Lake part with a 3nm process, and it targets a different segment: thin-and-light systems with 25W power envelopes that still need high performance. The Core Ultra X7 358H's 16 cores and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the choice for sustained compute, while the Core 5 210H fits mainstream laptops where the higher power draw is acceptable and the performance ceiling is lower.