Intel Core 7 160HL vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Intel Core 7 160HL and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H represent two distinct approaches within Intel’s current lineup. The 160HL is a desktop-oriented Raptor Lake-PS part, while the 356H is a mobile Panther Lake processor. The recorded data shows a clear separation in performance, architecture, and target use cases, with the Core Ultra 7 356H holding a substantial advantage in nearly every measured workload.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H dominates the recorded benchmark results across all available tests. The database contains 17 benchmark entries for the 356H, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, plus PassMark workloads. The Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, meaning its measured performance profile is absent. As a result, the 356H wins every head-to-head comparison by default based on available data. Its average benchmark score of 41215 places it at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, a strong position that indicates high overall throughput. The 160HL sits at the 50th percentile, which puts it at the median of the database, but this figure is not backed by any specific workload scores.

The 356H shows particular strength in multi-threaded rendering tasks. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 18395, and in R20 multicore it reaches 12153. Single-core performance is also solid, with an R23 single-core score of 2040 and an R20 single-core score of 1715. PassMark results reinforce the pattern: multithread score of 33978, integer math at 83111, floating point math at 103128, and data compression at 336177. These numbers indicate a processor that handles both heavily threaded workloads and single-threaded tasks with consistent efficiency. The 160HL, lacking any recorded scores, cannot be placed in a winning category based on measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and are built for different physical environments. The Core 7 160HL uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel’s foundry. It is a desktop part designed for Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 7 356H uses the newer Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process, also at Intel’s foundry. It is a mobile part using Intel BGA 2540.

Core counts differ significantly. The 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, which suggests a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads, indicating a different threading model where each core maps to a single thread. Cache layouts also diverge. The 160HL provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The 356H offers a larger 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but a smaller 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the 356H may help with latency-sensitive workloads, while the 160HL’s larger L3 pool benefits shared data access.

Memory support differs as well. The 160HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The 356H supports only DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The 356H also has a more advanced PCIe interface, offering Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes, whereas the 160HL uses Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the 160HL carries Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, part of the Panther Lake-H generation, and has a release date in early 2026. The 160HL was released in April 2024. The 356H also has a part number listed as SA4RGQ9EU, while the 160HL’s part number is listed as unknown.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Core 7 160HL is manufactured on a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 356H is manufactured on a 3 nm process.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Core 7 160HL has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 7 356H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory types are supported?

A: The Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Core 7 160HL has a TDP of 45 watts, and the Core Ultra 7 356H has a TDP of 25 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 7 356H has an average benchmark score of 41215, while the Core 7 160HL has an average benchmark score of 0, with no recorded benchmark entries.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 1.90 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The 160HL runs at a higher TDP of 45 watts, while the 356H is rated at 25 watts, reflecting its mobile design.

The 160HL uses Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop market segment. The 356H uses Intel BGA 2540 and targets mobile. The 160HL is built on Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process, while the 356H uses Panther Lake architecture with a 3 nm process. Cache configurations differ: the 160HL has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB L3 shared. The 356H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB L3 shared.

Memory support splits by generation. The 160HL accepts DDR4 and DDR5, both dual-channel. The 356H accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a measured memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. PCIe capability favors the 356H, which uses Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes versus the 160HL’s Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the 160HL featuring Iris Xe Graphics 96EU and the 356H featuring Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates are April 2024 for the 160HL and January 2026 for the 356H. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the two processors, and the Core 7 160HL has no individual benchmark scores. Therefore, the comparison relies entirely on the Core Ultra 7 356H’s recorded results and its placement among nearest rivals. The 356H’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18395 and single-core score of 2040 show strong rendering performance. In R20, the multicore score of 12153 and single-core score of 1715 follow the same pattern. The R15 results, 3055 multicore and 303 single-core, are consistent with a processor that scales well across thread counts.

PassMark results for the 356H provide a broader view. The multithread score of 33978 and single-thread score of 4072 indicate balanced throughput. Integer math at 83111 and floating point math at 103128 show heavy compute capability. Data encryption at 26345, extended instructions at 27898, and data compression at 336177 all point to strong performance in varied workloads. The find prime numbers score of 327 and random string sorting score of 40990 round out the suite.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the 356H’s average benchmark score of 41215 sits essentially level with the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, which averages 41208, a delta of 0 percent. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H comes in at 41263, a delta of -0.1 percent, meaning the 356H trails by a negligible margin. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X posts an average of 41376, a delta of -0.4 percent. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H averages 40967, a delta of 0.6 percent, putting it slightly behind the 356H. These narrow deltas place the 356H in a highly competitive cluster at the top of the database’s performance distribution. The 160HL, with no scores and a 50th percentile ranking, cannot be evaluated against these figures.

The Verdict

The recorded data favors the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H in every measurable category. It has 16 cores, a 3 nm process, 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 support, and an average benchmark score of 41215 at the 87th percentile. Its Cinebench and PassMark results confirm strong multi-threaded and single-threaded performance. The 356H is the clear choice for workloads that demand high throughput in a mobile form factor, with a 25 watt TDP that suits portable systems.

The Intel Core 7 160HL offers a higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz, a larger shared L3 cache of 24 MB, support for DDR4 memory, and a desktop socket that appeals to upgradable builds. Its 14 cores and 20 threads provide good threading flexibility, and its 45 watt TDP suggests it is designed for sustained desktop operation. However, with no recorded benchmark scores, its actual performance cannot be quantified from the database. The 356H’s 87th percentile ranking versus the 160HL’s 50th percentile ranking indicates a significant gap in overall capability. For users prioritizing measured performance, the Core Ultra 7 356H is the only option supported by data. For those requiring desktop compatibility, DDR4 support, or higher clock speeds, the Core 7 160HL offers those specific features despite lacking benchmark evidence.