Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 18,747 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 40.3% ahead of the Intel Core 5 220H's 11,198.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded PassMark testing?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H records a PassMark single-thread score of 4,124, while the Intel Core 5 220H scores 3,405. The Ultra X7 leads by 17.4%.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H uses a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is built on a 3 nm node, both manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, slightly higher than the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H's 4.80 GHz.

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H has a TDP of 45 W, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a TDP of 25 W.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H compare to its nearest rival in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has an average benchmark score of 40,967. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, scores 41,208, a 0.6% gap in favor of the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinctly different Intel design generations. The Intel Core 5 220H is based on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H refresh, and belongs to the Core 5 generation. It uses a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, by contrast, uses the Panther Lake codename, belongs to the Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) generation within the Core Ultra Series 3, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process node.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 220H provides 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 358H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Ultra X7 has four additional physical cores but the same thread count, indicating a different core arrangement without hyper-threading on the newer part.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 220H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and also 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations on the Ultra X7 reflect the newer architecture's design priorities.

Memory support differs significantly. The Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 5 220H does not have a listed memory bandwidth figure in the database.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The Core 5 220H offers PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra X7 358H offers PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, whereas the Core Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390 graphics.

Sockets are incompatible: the Core 5 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Core 5 220H has a launch MSRP of $342; the Ultra X7 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins every single test. The Core 5 220H secures zero wins. This is not a close contest by any measure.

For applications that stress multi-core performance, the Ultra X7 holds commanding leads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it leads by 40.3%. In PassMark multi-thread, the lead is 35.3%. The largest single advantage appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra X7 scores 337 versus 82, a 75.7% advantage.

Single-thread performance also favors the Ultra X7, though by smaller margins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 10.9% lead for the Ultra X7, and PassMark single-thread shows a 17.4% lead. The smallest recorded gap in the entire head-to-head set is the Cinebench R23 single-core test at 10.9%.

The Core 5 220H does hold advantages in certain specification areas. It has a higher boost clock (4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz), a lower TDP requirement is not one of them (45 W versus 25 W), and it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory rather than only LPDDR5X. Its 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes double the Ultra X7's 4 lanes. These factors matter for platform flexibility, but they do not translate into benchmark victories.

The data indicates that the Core Ultra X7 358H is the superior processor for raw compute performance in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The Core 5 220H remains relevant for systems requiring DDR4 support or more PCIe lanes, but the performance gap is decisive. The Ultra X7 also sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Core 5 220H's 80th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 220H | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 18 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | Not listed | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU | Arc B390 |

| Launch MSRP | $342 | Not listed |

The specification table highlights the architectural shift between generations. The Ultra X7 uses a dramatically smaller process node (3 nm versus 10 nm) and achieves a lower TDP (25 W versus 45 W) while delivering substantially higher performance. The base clock of the Core 5 220H is higher at 2.70 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, but the boost clocks are close, with the Core 5 220H edging ahead by 0.10 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. Every recorded test, from Cinebench render workloads to PassMark math operations, favors the newer part. The margins vary widely by workload type.

Multi-core Cinebench results show consistent leads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra X7 scores 3,027 versus 1,835, a 39.4% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 12,011 versus 7,812, a 35% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers the largest multi-core margin at 40.3%, with scores of 18,747 and 11,198.

Single-core Cinebench tests show smaller but still clear advantages. Cinebench R15 single-core gives the Ultra X7 a 13.1% lead (301.5 versus 262). Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 35% advantage (1,695 versus 1,102), while Cinebench R23 single-core narrows to 10.9% (2,080 versus 1,853).

PassMark tests reveal the widest performance gaps. The find prime numbers test shows the Ultra X7 at 337 versus 82, a 75.7% lead, the largest delta in the entire dataset. Floating point math favors the Ultra X7 by 50.2% (103,842 versus 51,671). Physics tests show a 51.1% advantage (3,021 versus 1,478). Extended instructions deliver a 46.3% lead (27,274 versus 14,642). Data encryption shows a 41.6% advantage (26,046 versus 15,216).

More moderate PassMark gaps include data compression at 25.4% (332,508 versus 247,921), random string sorting at 29.5% (40,357 versus 28,438), integer math at 11.5% (83,147 versus 73,555), and multi-thread at 35.3% (33,802 versus 21,884). Single-thread tests show a 17.4% lead (4,124 versus 3,405).

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall picture. The Core 5 220H averages 28,574 across its benchmark suite, placing it in the 80th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7203P (average 28,583, 0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS (28,549, 0.1% delta), and the Intel Xeon E-2436 (28,530, 0.2% delta). The Core Ultra X7 358H averages 40,967, placing it in the 87th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41,208, -0.6% delta), Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41,215, -0.6% delta), AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G (40,718, 0.6% delta), and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (41,263, -0.7% delta).

The performance delta between the two Intel parts is roughly 43% in average benchmark score (40,967 versus 28,574). No single test in the head-to-head set favors the Core 5 220H, making this one of the more one-sided comparisons in the database.