Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive, one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with no wins for the Intel Core 5 210H. The margins, however, vary significantly by workload.

The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra X7 368H scores 3984 against 1771 for the Core 5 210H, a 55.5% advantage. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a similar pattern at 1673 versus 918, a 45.1% lead. The smallest single-thread gap is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra X7 scores 4005 versus 3539, an 11.6% edge. That narrower margin suggests the Core 5 210H retains relatively strong per-thread performance in certain workloads, even if it falls behind in peak single-core rendering tests.

Multi-core results amplify the Ultra X7's advantage. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Ultra X7 at 28221 versus 11830, a 58.1% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core is similarly lopsided: 11852 versus 6504, a 45.1% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 2844 versus 1757, a 38.2% difference. These results indicate that the Ultra X7's additional cores translate into substantial rendering throughput gains.

Some of the most extreme deltas appear in specific compute tasks. PassMark find prime numbers shows the Ultra X7 at 321 versus 53, an 83.5% advantage, the largest single delta in the dataset. PassMark physics shows 2857 versus 1040, a 63.6% lead. PassMark floating point math shows 105681 versus 45057, a 57.4% gap. PassMark data encryption shows 25228 versus 12187, a 51.7% lead. PassMark extended instructions shows 25669 versus 13370, a 47.9% edge.

Other PassMark workloads show smaller but still clear leads. PassMark data compression: 312927 versus 217805, a 30.4% advantage. PassMark integer math: 88083 versus 61503, a 30.2% lead. PassMark random string sorting: 38093 versus 23451, a 38.4% gap. PassMark multithread: 32956 versus 18252, a 44.6% lead.

The average benchmark scores reflect this overall dominance. The Ultra X7 368H averages 40518 across the recorded tests, while the Core 5 210H averages 24872. In percentile terms, the Ultra X7 sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 210H sits at the 77th. The nearest rivals for the Ultra X7 include the Intel Core 7 253PE at 40557 (a 0.1% difference), the Intel Core 5 223PE at 40585 (0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H at 40431 (0.2%), and the Intel Xeon 6507P at 40426 (0.2%). The Core 5 210H's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24911 (0.2% difference), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX at 24822 (0.2%), the Intel Core i7-11850H at 24935 (0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F at 24964 (0.4%).

Where Each One Wins

The data records no benchmark where the Intel Core 5 210H beats the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. Every recorded test, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark integer math, favors the Ultra X7. The Core 5 210H does, however, show its closest relative performance in PassMark single-thread, where the 11.6% delta is far smaller than the 30% to 80% gaps seen elsewhere. That result suggests the Core 5 210H is comparatively competitive in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, even though it still loses.

The Ultra X7 368H wins most decisively in compute-heavy and parallel workloads. The 83.5% lead in prime number finding, the 63.6% lead in physics simulation, and the 57.4% lead in floating point math point to a processor that handles heavy numerical work with far more headroom. The 58.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core confirms that the Ultra X7 is the clear choice for rendering and content creation workloads that scale across cores.

For data compression and integer work, the Ultra X7's lead shrinks to roughly 30%, which is still a solid margin but less dramatic. The single-thread tests show the smallest gaps, indicating that the Core 5 210H's architecture is not obsolete in per-core performance, just outmatched.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different manufacturing processes. The Intel Core 5 210H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, built on a 10 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, built on a 3 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads. The Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra X7 has double the cores but fewer threads per core, which explains why its multi-threaded gains are large but not exactly proportional to core count.

Cache configurations also differ. The Core 5 210H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Ultra X7 likely contribute to its strong single-thread scores.

Clock speeds are close but favor the Ultra X7 at the top end. The Core 5 210H has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Ultra X7 368H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Ultra X7 boosts 0.20 GHz higher, while the Core 5 210H has a 0.20 GHz higher base clock.

Power and platform details differ significantly. The Core 5 210H has a TDP of 45 watts and uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket. The Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 watts and uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The Ultra X7 delivers substantially more performance at a lower TDP, a notable efficiency advantage.

Memory support differs. The Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode. The Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory in dual-channel mode with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 5 210H has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. PCIe support also differs: the Core 5 210H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra X7 368H offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390 graphics. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins every recorded single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 3984 versus 1771 for the Core 5 210H, a 55.5% lead. In PassMark single-thread the gap is smaller: 4005 versus 3539, an 11.6% advantage.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Ultra X7 368H leads by 58.1% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (28221 versus 11830) and by 45.1% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (11852 versus 6504). The PassMark multithread test shows a 44.6% lead (32956 versus 18252).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Do the processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 5 210H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The Core 5 210H has a TDP of 45 watts. The Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 watts, despite delivering higher performance in every recorded benchmark.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Core 5 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390 graphics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category.

• Cores: 8 (Core 5 210H) versus 16 (Ultra X7 368H)
• Threads: 12 (Core 5 210H) versus 16 (Ultra X7 368H)
• Base clock: 2.20 GHz (Core 5 210H) versus 2.00 GHz (Ultra X7 368H)
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz (Core 5 210H) versus 5.00 GHz (Ultra X7 368H)
• TDP: 45 watts (Core 5 210H) versus 25 watts (Ultra X7 368H)
• Socket: Intel BGA 1744 (Core 5 210H) versus Intel BGA 2540 (Ultra X7 368H)
• Architecture: Raptor Lake (Core 5 210H) versus Panther Lake (Ultra X7 368H)
• Process node: 10 nm (Core 5 210H) versus 3 nm (Ultra X7 368H)
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (Core 5 210H) versus 192 KB per core (Ultra X7 368H)
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (Core 5 210H) versus 2.5 MB per core (Ultra X7 368H)
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared (Core 5 210H) versus 18 MB shared (Ultra X7 368H)
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 (Core 5 210H) versus LPDDR5X (Ultra X7 368H)
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded (Core 5 210H) versus 153.6 GB/s (Ultra X7 368H)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 8 lanes CPU only (Core 5 210H) versus Gen 5, 4 lanes CPU only (Ultra X7 368H)
• Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 48EU (Core 5 210H) versus Arc B390 (Ultra X7 368H)
• Release date: 2024-12-17 (Core 5 210H) versus 2026-01-04 (Ultra X7 368H)
• Launch MSRP: $342 (Core 5 210H) versus none recorded (Ultra X7 368H)
• Generation: Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) (Core 5 210H) versus Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) (Ultra X7 368H)
• Series: none recorded (Core 5 210H) versus Core Ultra Series 3 (Ultra X7 368H)
• Part number: SRQ6RQ5MN (Core 5 210H) versus SA4R7Q9EJ (Ultra X7 368H)

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H outperforms the Intel Core 5 210H in every recorded test. The largest gap, an 83.5% lead in PassMark find prime numbers, shows how far apart these two processors are in heavy numerical workloads. The smallest gap, an 11.6% lead in PassMark single-thread, still favors the Ultra X7.

The Ultra X7 368H also delivers this performance at a lower TDP: 25 watts versus 45 watts for the Core 5 210H. It uses a newer 3 nm process, has double the cores, more cache at every level, a higher boost clock, and newer integrated graphics. Its average benchmark score of 40518 places it at the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the Core 5 210H's 24872 average and 77th percentile.

The Core 5 210H does have some attributes that may matter in specific contexts. It supports DDR4 memory, which could be relevant for systems using older memory modules. It offers 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 4 on the Ultra X7, which could matter for storage or expansion bandwidth. It has a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. These factors, however, do not change the performance outcome recorded in the benchmarks.

The Core 5 210H also has a recorded launch MSRP of $342, while the Ultra X7 368H has no recorded launch MSRP. The release dates differ as well, with the Core 5 210H released on 2024-12-17 and the Ultra X7 368H on 2026-01-04.

For users choosing between these two mobile processors, the data points clearly toward the Ultra X7 368H for any workload that benefits from multi-core performance, single-core speed, or numerical throughput. The Core 5 210H remains a functional processor, particularly where its DDR4 support, higher PCIe lane count, or higher base clock are deciding factors, but the recorded benchmark results give the Ultra X7 the win in every measured category.