Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is decisive but not uniform. The Intel Core 5 220H wins 12 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core 7 360 takes 5. The Core 5 220H dominates in throughput-oriented workloads: integer math leads by 114.8%, data compression by 73.5%, random string sorting by 61.2%, and multithread by 40.8%. These are large, consistent margins that point to a processor built for sustained parallel work.

The Core 7 360, by contrast, wins where the workload favors per-thread efficiency or a specific instruction pattern. Its single-thread PassMark score is 4274 against 3405, a 20.3% advantage. Prime number finding goes to the Core 7 360 by 31.7%. Cinebench R23 tells a mixed story: the Core 7 360 leads multi-core by 17.9% and single-core by 3.7%, despite losing the older Cinebench R15 and R20 runs by margins between 33.6% and 36.4%.

The data suggests the Core 5 220H is the stronger all-around compute part, especially for workloads that scale with core count and memory parallelism. The Core 7 360 is the better choice for lightly threaded tasks and for specific integer-heavy single-thread operations. The split is not a simple generational win; it reflects two different design priorities.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design lineages. The Core 5 220H uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H refresh, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Core 7 360 uses Wildcat Lake on a 3 nm process. That process advantage helps explain the Core 7 360's higher single-thread PassMark score despite a lower boost clock.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core 5 220H offers hyper-threading; the Core 7 360 does not. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 220H carries 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 360 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 6 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Core 7 360 support its single-thread strength, while the larger total L3 on the Core 5 220H helps multi-threaded data sharing.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Core 5 220H runs a 2.70 GHz base with a 4.90 GHz boost. The Core 7 360 runs a much lower 1.50 GHz base but reaches 4.80 GHz boost. The thermal envelope tells the rest of the story: the Core 5 220H is rated at 45 W, the Core 7 360 at 15 W. That 15 W rating aligns with the lower base clock and the single-channel memory bus.

Memory support separates the two further. The Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only over a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core 5 220H has no recorded bandwidth figure in the database, but its dual-channel configuration is the clear architectural advantage for memory-hungry parallel workloads.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 220H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The Core 7 360 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Sockets are not shared: the Core 5 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, the Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516.

The Verdict

The Core 5 220H is the processor for parallel compute. Its 12 cores and 16 threads, dual-channel memory, and 18 MB of shared L3 produce dominant wins in compression, integer math, string sorting, and multithreaded PassMark. The data shows a 114.8% lead in integer math and a 73.5% lead in data compression. For rendering workloads, the Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core results favor the Core 5 220H by roughly 33.6% to 36.4%. The Core 7 360 cannot match that throughput.

The Core 7 360 is the processor for efficiency and single-thread responsiveness. Its 3 nm process, larger per-core caches, and lower 15 W TDP deliver a 20.3% single-thread PassMark lead and a 31.7% lead in prime number finding. The R23 multi-core result, where the Core 7 360 leads by 17.9%, suggests that newer Cinebench versions reward the Wildcat Lake architecture's efficiency even in multi-threaded rendering. That is a notable exception to the Core 5 220H's overall multi-core dominance.

The percentile data places the Core 5 220H at the 80th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28574. The Core 7 360 sits at the 72nd percentile with an average score of 18374. The Core 5 220H's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7203P at 28583 and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS at 28549, both within 0.1% to 0.2%. The Core 7 360's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18380, essentially identical. The average score gap between the two processors is substantial: 28574 versus 18374, a difference of roughly 55.5%.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded throughput, the Core 5 220H is the clear pick. For users prioritizing single-thread speed, lower power draw, and newer process technology, the Core 7 360 is the data-supported choice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded PassMark tests?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 scores 4274 in PassMark single-thread, while the Intel Core 5 220H scores 3405. That is a 20.3% advantage for the Core 7 360.

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

A: The Core 5 220H leads in most multi-threaded tests. Its PassMark multithread score is 21884 versus 15544, a 40.8% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, however, the Core 7 360 leads 13634 versus 11198, a 17.9% advantage.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The Core 5 220H is built on Intel's 10 nm process using Raptor Lake architecture. The Core 7 360 is built on a 3 nm process using Wildcat Lake architecture.

Q: How do the cache configurations compare?

A: The Core 5 220H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 360 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3.

Q: Which processor supports faster PCIe?

A: The Core 5 220H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The Core 7 360 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Core 5 220H has an average benchmark score of 28574, placing it at the 80th percentile. The Core 7 360 has an average score of 18374, placing it at the 72nd percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin belongs to the Core 5 220H in PassMark integer math. Its score of 73555 dwarfs the Core 7 360's 34238, a 114.8% difference. That is the clearest signal of the Core 5 220H's parallel integer capability.

Data compression follows a similar pattern. The Core 5 220H scores 247921 against 142877, a 73.5% lead. Random string sorting shows a 61.2% advantage for the Core 5 220H, with scores of 28438 and 17636. PassMark multithread adds another large margin: 21884 versus 15544, a 40.8% lead. Data encryption goes to the Core 5 220H by 36.3%, with scores of 15216 and 11164.

Cinebench R15 and R20 both favor the Core 5 220H. Multi-core R15 shows 1835 versus 1374, a 33.6% lead. Single-core R15 shows 262 versus 193, a 35.8% lead. R20 multi-core shows 7812 versus 5726, a 36.4% lead, and R20 single-core shows 1102 versus 808, also 36.4%. Extended instructions favor the Core 5 220H by 18.2%, with scores of 14642 and 12390. Floating point math gives the Core 5 220H a 14.9% lead, 51671 versus 44963. Physics scores favor the Core 5 220H by 21.8%, 1478 versus 1213.

The Core 7 360's wins are fewer but meaningful. PassMark single-thread shows 4274 versus 3405, a 20.3% lead. Prime number finding shows 120 versus 82, a 31.7% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 13634 versus 11198, a 17.9% lead, and R23 single-core shows 1924 versus 1853, a 3.7% lead. The R23 results are notable because they reverse the R15 and R20 trends, indicating that the newer Cinebench version responds differently to the two architectures.

The overall win count, 12 for the Core 5 220H and 5 for the Core 7 360, matches the average score gap. The Core 5 220H wins in throughput and memory-sensitive tasks; the Core 7 360 wins in single-thread and prime-number workloads. The data does not support a single universal winner, but it does support a clear role for each processor.

Specification Differences

The Core 5 220H and Core 7 360 differ across nearly every major specification field.

Cores: 12 versus 6. Threads: 16 versus 6. Base clock: 2.70 GHz versus 1.50 GHz. Boost clock: 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP: 45 W versus 15 W.

Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Architecture: Raptor Lake versus Wildcat Lake. Codename: Raptor Lake-H versus Wildcat Lake. Generation: Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) versus Core 5 (Wildcat Lake).

Cache: L1 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 18 MB shared versus 6 MB shared.

Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bus: dual-channel versus single-channel. Memory bandwidth: not recorded versus 59.7 GB/s.

PCIe: Gen 5, 8 lanes versus Gen 4, 6 lanes. Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe). Socket: Intel BGA 1744 versus Intel BGA 1516.

Release date: 2024-12-17 versus 2026-04-15. Launch MSRP: $342 versus $426. Part number: SRQ6SQ5MM versus SAE3E. Both are active production parts, both are mobile segments, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.

The specification sheet confirms the benchmark story. The Core 5 220H is a high-power, high-core-count part with older but proven architecture. The Core 7 360 is a low-power, low-core-count part with newer process technology and faster per-thread performance. The 45 W versus 15 W TDP gap frames the entire comparison: the Core 5 220H spends energy to move data in parallel, while the Core 7 360 conserves energy and maximizes single-thread efficiency.