Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins every single head-to-head comparison, 17 out of 17 tests. The largest margin appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 356H scores 327 against the Core 7 240H's 102, a 68.8% advantage. That test measures raw integer iteration throughput, and the gap indicates a fundamental difference in how efficiently each processor handles repetitive computation.

Floating point math shows a similar pattern. The Ultra 7 356H records 103128 in PassMark floating point math, while the Core 7 240H manages 58905, a 42.9% deficit. Data encryption favors the newer chip by 42.5%, with scores of 26345 versus 15155. Extended instructions also lean heavily toward the Ultra 7 356H, 27898 against 16897, a 39.4% difference. Physics simulation follows with 2895 versus 1723, a 40.5% gap.

The smallest win for the Ultra 7 356H comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 83111 against 80396, only 3.3% ahead. Single-thread performance is also relatively close: 4072 versus 3782 in PassMark single thread, a 7.1% edge. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2040 versus 1719, a 15.7% lead for the Ultra 7 356H, while multi-core R23 shows 18395 versus 15764, a 14.3% margin.

The multi-core deltas widen significantly in older Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra 7 356H scores 12153 against 8562, a 29.5% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 3055 versus 2360, a 22.7% advantage. Data compression in PassMark gives the Ultra 7 356H a 19.2% edge, 336177 versus 271774. Random string sorting favors the newer part by 29.6%, 40990 versus 28866. The overall PassMark multithread score shows 33978 versus 23975, a 29.4% difference.

The Core 7 240H does not win any single benchmark in this comparison. Its closest relative performance is in integer math, but even there it trails. The average benchmark score reflects this: the Ultra 7 356H sits at 41215, while the Core 7 240H sits at 31483. The Ultra 7 356H also places in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 7 240H places in the 82nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design lineages. The Core 7 240H uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Ultra 7 356H uses Panther Lake architecture, Panther Lake-H, built on a 3 nm process. This process shrink is the single largest architectural factor separating the two, and it explains much of the efficiency and performance gap.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. That means the newer chip has 60% more physical cores, yet the same thread count, indicating a different core topology. The Raptor Lake part relies on hyperthreading to reach 16 threads from 10 cores, while the Panther Lake part appears to use 16 physical cores without hyperthreading.

Cache layouts also diverge. The Core 7 240H uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 356H uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Per-core cache is larger on the Panther Lake chip, but total L3 is smaller, 18 MB versus 24 MB.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Core 7 240H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Ultra 7 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Raptor Lake part runs at higher clocks, yet still loses every benchmark, which confirms that the Panther Lake architecture delivers more work per cycle.

Power targets are not equal. The Core 7 240H carries a 45 W TDP, while the Ultra 7 356H carries a 25 W TDP. The newer processor achieves superior results across all tests while drawing a lower thermal envelope. Memory support differs as well: the Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 7 356H lists a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s; the Core 7 240H has no recorded bandwidth figure.

PCIe connectivity expands on the newer part. The Core 7 240H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 7 356H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also change: the Core 7 240H ships with Iris Xe Graphics 64EU, while the Ultra 7 356H ships with Intel Xe3 Graphics. Sockets are incompatible, with the older chip using Intel BGA 1744 and the newer using Intel BGA 2540. The Ultra 7 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 product line, while the Core 7 240H carries no series designation.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 240H has no benchmark wins in this dataset, so any use-case advantage must come from qualitative factors. Its higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz could benefit lightly threaded workloads that depend on raw clock speed, but the recorded single-core tests do not support that hypothesis. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 7 356H leads 303 to 249. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it leads 1715 to 1208. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it leads 2040 to 1719. Even in PassMark single thread, where the gap narrows to 7.1%, the Ultra 7 356H still wins.

The Ultra 7 356H wins in every category the data measures. Multi-threaded rendering, encryption, compression, physics simulation, integer math, floating point math, and single-thread response all favor the Panther Lake part. The largest margins appear in find prime numbers, floating point math, physics, encryption, and extended instructions, all of which exceed 39%. The smallest margin is in integer math at 3.3%, followed by single-thread at 7.1%.

Workloads that stress memory bandwidth would likely favor the Ultra 7 356H, given its recorded 115.2 GB/s figure, though the Core 7 240H has no comparable number in the database. The Ultra 7 356H also supports LPDDR5X, which is typically found in thinner, lower-power mobile designs. Its 25 W TDP makes it the more plausible choice for thermally constrained chassis, while the Core 7 240H's 45 W TDP suggests a thicker cooling solution.

The Core 7 240H supports DDR4, which could matter for platforms that reuse existing memory modules. It also has a higher boost clock, which might appeal in principle to users who prioritize clock speed on paper. But the recorded benchmarks do not show any scenario where that clock advantage translates into a win. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 240H include the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H, both within 0.1% of its average score. The Ultra 7 356H sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, with deltas of 0% and -0.4% respectively.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, holds a 31% higher average benchmark score (41215 versus 31483), and ranks 5 percentile points higher among all CPUs. It does this while running at a lower TDP of 25 W versus 45 W, using a 3 nm process versus 10 nm, and offering more PCIe lanes.

The Core 7 240H retains two practical advantages from the specification sheet. It has a higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz, and it supports DDR4 memory, which could matter for cost-sensitive platform builds. Neither advantage appears in the benchmark results as a win, however. The Ultra 7 356H leads in single-core tests despite the lower boost clock, which indicates architectural efficiency outweighs raw clock speed.

Users choosing between these two mobile processors should consider the performance data first. The Ultra 7 356H delivers 14.3% to 68.8% higher scores depending on the workload, with the largest gains in computation-heavy tasks like prime finding, floating point math, and encryption. It also delivers those gains at a lower power target, which is relevant for battery life and thermal management in portable systems.

The Core 7 240H is an active, current product with a recorded launch MSRP of $502, released in December 2024. The Ultra 7 356H has no recorded launch MSRP and was released in January 2026. The newer part is built on a more advanced node, uses a newer socket, and belongs to a newer product generation. For anyone prioritizing measured performance, the Ultra 7 356H is the clear pick from the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core 7 240H wins none.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 356H scores 327 against 102 for the Core 7 240H, a 68.8% difference.

Q: How do their core counts and thread counts compare?

A: The Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Core 7 240H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Ultra 7 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each chip?

A: The Core 7 240H has a TDP of 45 W. The Ultra 7 356H has a TDP of 25 W.

Q: Do the two processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Ultra 7 356H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 240H | Intel Core Ultra 7 356H |

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

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

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

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 64EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Release date | December 2024 | January 2026 |

| Launch MSRP | $502 | Not recorded |

| Average benchmark score | 31483 | 41215 |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 82 | 87 |